whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => General Religious Discussion => Topic started by: Lukvance on May 25, 2014, 10:31:17 AM

Title: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 25, 2014, 10:31:17 AM
Hello all,
There is this question that comes really often during the course of my other discussion and it is beginning to seriously impede the evolution of the discussion.
So does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains? Yes
How can you prove it?
The same way you prove the existence of something immaterial as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Through it's definition.
Or using the ontological argument.
If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Or using the start of everything.
Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.
Or using the "bad" in the world.
Nothing can be made without consequences. What would happen to a child rapist who committed suicide right after raping the child? God (an entity external to our brain) must exist to execute his judgement.
Or using the design argument.
There is more order than chaos in what you see everyday. There must be something that thought about the laws of everything. That "thing" is God and is outside your mind (he made it)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Hatter23 on May 25, 2014, 10:49:18 AM
Hello all,
There is this question that comes really often during the course of my other discussion and it is beginning to seriously impede the evolution of the discussion.
So does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains? Yes
How can you prove it?
The same way you prove the existence of something immaterial as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Through it's definition.


Circular reasoning.


Or using the ontological argument.



Circular reasoning.



If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality.



Circular reasoning.





Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Or using the start of everything.



Circular reasoning.


Everything have a beginning but one.

Special Pleading


This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.


Circular Reasoning

Or using the "bad" in the world.
Nothing can be made without consequences. What would happen to a child rapist who committed suicide right after raping the child? God (an entity external to our brain) must exist to execute his judgement.

Ignoring the definition of Omnicience



Or using the design argument.
There is more order than chaos in what you see everyday. There must be something that thought about the laws of everything. That "thing" is God and is outside your mind (he made it)


Circular Argument, Ignoring the Counter evidence, Appeal to your own credulity, Equivocation(Deist God does not equal Interventionist God)


I still am puzzled, are you really this stupid, or a troll?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Nam on May 25, 2014, 11:02:49 AM
I think he's a troll. Has he ever really answered anyone's questions?

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Hatter23 on May 25, 2014, 11:36:25 AM
I think he's a troll. Has he ever really answered anyone's questions?

-Nam

He does, but waffles and weasels out when the obvious conclusion is that God has no more substance than the dragons of Skyrim.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 25, 2014, 11:42:39 AM
The same way you prove the existence of something immaterial as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Through it's definition.

Here is where your argument falters right from the very start. Applying "definitions" are nothing more than a method developed by human beings to describe material or immaterial objects or concepts in order to prevent said objects and or concepts to be confused with some other object and or concept. For a "definition" to be useful, it should (needs to) be broadly if not universally agreed upon to prevent confusion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition)

A "definition" does not in of itself provide "something immaterial" the ability to be an actual entity separate from a human brain.

And in regards to "God", you can't even get past the problem of providing a definition for said entity that is universally agreed upon. So, my advice is to get cracking getting the rest of humanity to accept your personal definition of this "God" before you even attempt to prove the existence of said personal "God".

Quote
Or using the ontological argument.
If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

I just envisioned a God (I call her Lucy) that can beat up your God, take his lunch money and give him a wet willie for good measure. She therefore must also exist in reality, right? Hey, these are your rules, not mine.

See "Gaunilo" under the "Criticisms and objections":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument)

Your ontological argument is nothing more than a philosophical exercise that fails to provide tangible evidence to back up your claims.

Quote
Or using the start of everything.
Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.

All this according to your personal definition of your God, which I have already explained does not impart this immaterial concept with an existence separate from the human brain.

Quote
Or using the "bad" in the world.
Nothing can be made without consequences. What would happen to a child rapist who committed suicide right after raping the child? God (an entity external to our brain) must exist to execute his judgement.

Wash, rinse, repeat. All this according to your personal definition of your God, which I have already explained does not impart this immaterial concept with an existence separate from the human brain.

Quote
Or using the design argument.
There is more order than chaos in what you see everyday. There must be something that thought about the laws of everything. That "thing" is God and is outside your mind (he made it)

Personal opinion and nothing more.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Anfauglir on May 25, 2014, 02:17:52 PM
Hello all,
There is this question that comes really often during the course of my other discussion and it is beginning to seriously impede the evolution of the discussion.
So does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains? Yes
How can you prove it?
The same way you prove the existence of something immaterial as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Through it's definition.

Yeah.  Forget that pesky "evidence" that you're repeatedly asked for, just go for some more word-play.  THAT'LL convince us.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 25, 2014, 03:07:03 PM
Well, tell us, Luk, tell us of something immaterial that you can prove exists outwith the human mind. Any example will do so don't worry what it is, It just has to be something immaterial.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 25, 2014, 03:16:40 PM
This is the work of a troll.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 25, 2014, 05:26:25 PM
I just imagined a god who killed Lukvance's god using a special imaginary martial arts technique I also made up. We are done here.  ;D
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 25, 2014, 05:43:18 PM
I just imagined a god who killed Lukvance's god using a special imaginary martial arts technique I also made up. We are done here.  ;D

Jew jitsu?  :angel:
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 25, 2014, 06:50:45 PM
Jew jitsu BWAHA
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 25, 2014, 06:54:32 PM
Thankyew! Thankyew! I'll be here all week! Don't forget to tip your waitress server! 8)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Nam on May 25, 2014, 07:38:12 PM
Thankyew! Thankyew! I'll be here all week! Don't forget to tip your waitress! 8)

Ummm...they're called "servers". Don't be sexist.

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 25, 2014, 07:43:05 PM
Ummm...they're called "servers". Don't be sexist.

Fixed. :)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Nam on May 25, 2014, 07:58:15 PM
Ummm...they're called "servers". Don't be sexist.

Fixed. :)

Sexist!

I keed, I keed

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on May 25, 2014, 09:07:24 PM
Hello all,
There is this question that comes really often during the course of my other discussion and it is beginning to seriously impede the evolution of the discussion.
So does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains? Yes
How can you prove it?
The same way you prove the existence of something immaterial as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Through it's definition.
Or using the ontological argument.
If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Or using the start of everything.
Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.
Or using the "bad" in the world.
Nothing can be made without consequences. What would happen to a child rapist who committed suicide right after raping the child? God (an entity external to our brain) must exist to execute his judgement.
Or using the design argument.
There is more order than chaos in what you see everyday. There must be something that thought about the laws of everything. That "thing" is God and is outside your mind (he made it)

So you can prove, then, that Santa Claus exists merely by defining him as existing? No, sorry. FAIL. Things are not demonstrated to independently exist merely by "saying so". This is your bullshit belief and it has no basis in fact, since anyone can merely SAY (define) whatever mythical thing they want to. It does not logically follow that such things exist independently of human conception. So once again, you are using irrational arguments (and you know better).

Second, you have raised (but not presented or defended) the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the moral argument, and the design argument. And ever single one of these arguments fails.


Ontological Argument - This argument fails for the same reason your "because I say so" argument about miracles or a god fails. You cannot merely define something into actual independent existence. Merely engaging in linguistic construction does not make something real or actual. So merely CLAIMING that because you can think of a specific "great" being doesn't prove that there is such a thing. This argument is ad hoc at best.


Cosmological Argument - You say, "Everything have a beginning but one" but you didn't prove it. Again, this is just more of your "because I say so" bullshit. The Cosmological Argument fails miserably at demonstrating a God for many reasons. 1) The term "God" is not coherently define and has been consistently shown to be vacuous and meaningless in it's application. 2) Even if our local universe had a beginning that does not mean that there are not other universes in existence or that a magic "God" is a sufficient explanation. There are numerous possibilities. Merely asserting "because I say it must be God" is childish. You don't win by default.

The "Bad in the World" Moral Argument - Just because harm happens in the world, it does not follow that there must be some father "judge". But you didn't even attempt to defend this argument. All you did (as is so common with you) is ASSERT IT with out evidence. Again, "because I say so" = FAIL. The fact that actions have consequences (such as a rapist being sent to jail) says nothing about a deity god "thing".

Design Argument - "There must be a thinking god. Therefore there is one" is your argument? Really? That's pathetic dude. This is just more "because I say so" fallacy. Again, your saying it is so doesn't make it so. You need to actually DEMONSTRATE your claims - not just claim them as fact a priori. The design argument fails because you haven't demonstrated that anything IS designed. All you've done is said that they look designed to you. But science is not about your personal opinions of what "looks" like design. Our planet is the only one that we know of that is even remotely OK for life. Everywhere else (including most of our planet btw) is hostile to life (like outer space, black holes, other galaxies, etc). If anything, the universe is good for death and killing life (or at least not permitting it). This argument is not sound because it doesn't present a designer. It merely asserts what it needs to prove.

It's really too bad that you can't come up with anything better than just words to demonstrate your alleged invisible God. Could that be because your God is imaginary fiction?


Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 25, 2014, 09:15:26 PM
Oh shoot, there is one Jewish guy at my work and i made a crack about jew jitsu...... he did not see the funny side while i was lmao in front of a bunch of people who were not laughing.


THANKS DOS or should it be disciple of fuking evil !!!
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 25, 2014, 09:19:28 PM
Oh shoot, there is one Jewish guy at my work and i made a crack about jew jitsu...... he did not see the funny side while i was lmao in front of a bunch of people who were not laughing.


THANKS DOS or should it be disciple of fuking evil !!!

That's "Miss Disciple of Fucking Evil". ;)

Seriously, though. I'm actually surprised that someone would find that offensive. It's not saying anything derogatory about Jewish people. :-\
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 25, 2014, 09:27:25 PM
All good i will say something offensive about Muslims to him and cheer him up.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: stuffin on May 25, 2014, 09:30:02 PM
.
If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

Ya know, you conflict yourself. You say, because he exists in the mind he exists, but ("of course") he exists separate from that mind.

How can something be and not be at the same time? Shit he's god, I keep forgetting.

Sorry for questioning, you are right again......  :-X
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 25, 2014, 09:32:40 PM
All good i will say something offensive about Muslims to him and cheer him up.

Out of curiosity, did he say why he found it offensive? I honestly don't see how it could be. :-\
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 25, 2014, 09:42:20 PM
I will ask when he cools down. being the only Jew. in redneck country prolly amplifies small things.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 25, 2014, 09:44:32 PM
BTW i will tell him the joke was yr idea, i am. clearly the victim here.  just take one for the team...
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 25, 2014, 11:51:02 PM
Well, tell us, Luk, tell us of something immaterial that you can prove exists outwith the human mind. Any example will do so don't worry what it is, It just has to be something immaterial.
That's a good question. I can't think of any proof but testimonial of other people.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 25, 2014, 11:51:56 PM
Can one of you prove that something immaterial can exists outside the human mind?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 26, 2014, 12:14:34 AM
Nope
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 26, 2014, 12:16:51 AM
Oh wait, i will help you out here luk.... gravity. ....so god is gravity ....and love.


Gravity is omnipresent to and look at all the converts to gravity that are happy so it must be true. to rebel against gravity is futile so it is all powerful and if you defy gravity you will die or just brake bones so hell is rebelling against gravity which puts hurt on you but if you obey graviity you are not hurt si gravity is all loving.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Astreja on May 26, 2014, 12:47:03 AM
Can one of you prove that something immaterial can exists outside the human mind?

How does one prove the existence of something that leaves no trace whatsoever in the physical universe, and that can only be "seen" with the imagination?  More importantly, how does one determine that it "exists" but that imaginary things do not?  At this point, I really can't tell the difference.

Perhaps we should ask Lucy to materialize and show us the lunch money She took from Yahweh.   ;D
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 26, 2014, 03:22:54 AM
Can one of you prove that something immaterial can exists outside the human mind?

How does one prove the existence of something that leaves no trace whatsoever in the physical universe, and that can only be "seen" with the imagination?  More importantly, how does one determine that it "exists" but that imaginary things do not?  At this point, I really can't tell the difference.

Perhaps we should ask Lucy to materialize and show us the lunch money She took from Yahweh.   ;D

Well then, how do we prove something non-material exists? It's a good question and which Luk hasn't really an answer. There are, it seems to me, two possibilities here -

1. Something non-material exists. It cannot interact with the material world in any way. If this is the case for anything from a ghost to a god, then it follows that we cannot know of its existence - since we could never have contact with it - and it follows that any speculation on the existence is just that, speculation without evidence as evidence is not possible. Of course, if the object is a god, then that god is about as much use as the deist god and just about as in need of worship.

2. The non-material object can and does inter-act with the material world. in this case it ought to be simple to show that inter-action takes place and one can, by that means, demonstrate that the object exists. If it is a god, one ought to be able establish something about it. The claims by theists come into this category. They say they pray to their god and that he answers them, either in words or in actions. So, for theists, this should be easy to show.

So, that's how I see the job shaping up. Any happy theist like to show their god exists, that's how to do it.

Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 26, 2014, 03:35:11 AM
Ah but god gives you the choice to believe in him. if he provided evidence of his existence you would no longer have free will to believe something there is no proof for ....i think that's how it works, search me???
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 26, 2014, 03:49:22 AM
Well, I'm sure that's the excuse that will be used but it remains the case that if the supposed god cannot interact with the material world we

a. cannot know of his existence

b. it would not be the god Christians claim to know as they say their god interacts with the world via prayer and actual changes to the material world like healing people for example.

No, if anyone claims a god that ineracts with the world, then it should not be much of a job to prove it. Of course, if this god is only an idea in the brains of believers......
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on May 26, 2014, 03:51:34 AM
Can one of you prove that something immaterial can exists outside the human mind?

This question has no meaning because I have no idea what you are talking about when you use the term "immaterial". It has never been demonstrated to me that such a term is even logically coherent (let alone that it could be demonstrated as actual).
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on May 26, 2014, 03:55:26 AM
Ah but god gives you the choice to believe in him. if he provided evidence of his existence you would no longer have free will to believe something there is no proof for ....i think that's how it works, search me???

So Satan had no freewill?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 26, 2014, 04:03:12 AM
^ Well god created satan and sin for a reason. if satan did not choose sin the whole fukin book would be pointless... what then huh, if satan did not choose sin he prolly did it out of a sense of duty to god so god would have a book to sell and start his religion with.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: dloubet on May 26, 2014, 04:43:43 AM
Hello all,
There is this question that comes really often during the course of my other discussion and it is beginning to seriously impede the evolution of the discussion.
So does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains? Yes
How can you prove it?
The same way you prove the existence of something immaterial as a separate entity - separate from human brains. Through it's definition.
Or using the ontological argument.

No.

When we look at a real thing, reports of it tend to narrow towards a single story as the picture gets clearer. Is that what happens when we examine reports about gods?

No. When we examine reports about gods, the stories tend to diverge to the point where just about every believer has their own personal version different from all the others.

Where else do we see this same divergence effect? In the examination of subjective phenomenon where people are free to make up anything they like.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 08:13:13 AM
Does anybody else find it... "strange" that Luk appears hesitant to participate in a thread he himself created? There have been multiple, well-thought out responses to his OP, and yet his only response so far was to basically ask us to answer his own question:

Can one of you prove that something immaterial can exists outside the human mind?

I suggest we stop attempting to address this. Let him dig himself out of the hole he dug for himself.

Perhaps we should ask Lucy to materialize and show us the lunch money She took from Yahweh.   ;D

While in a coffee-induced state of oneness with the universe, my Goddess, Lucy Intheskywithdiamonds, had told me that besides the $5.75 and a book he borrowed from the library ("Creation for Dummies"), he also had on his possession a glossy 4x6 signed photograph of himself he apparently was just about to miracle down to Earth. It reads: "To my #1 fan, Lukvance. Thanks for thinking me in to existence! You're the best! God.".
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 26, 2014, 09:03:32 AM
Agreed. let's leave this one for Luk to reply to. He has been doing the same stuff on the 'cloak and dagger' thread but it won't hurt him to post here.

Note to Luk.

If you don't respond soon, we are all going to assume you have nothing to say and no evidence to present and you accept that your god resides in your head only as one of your thoughts. That leaves your religion pointless of course...
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 01:56:46 PM
Beside testimony and logic there are no other evidence for the existence of something immaterial outside your brain.
I gave you testimony.
I gave you logic proof.
What more do you want? The impossible? The thing that even yourself cannot conceive?
You want me to respond to what? I don't see any question.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 02:20:30 PM
Beside testimony and logic there are no other evidence for the existence of something immaterial outside your brain.
I gave you testimony.
I gave you logic proof.
What more do you want? The impossible? The thing that even yourself cannot conceive?
You want me to respond to what? I don't see any question.

You were the one who felt compelled to create this thread. You were the one attempting to provide an answer in the affirmative to your question "Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?". You were the one who, in your OP, said "How can you prove it?", followed by examples that you believed backed up your claim.

Those examples were then soundly shown to be nothing more than philosophical conjecture on your part by multiple posters who had independently arrived at the same conclusions.

So, either defend your original statements or admit that there are no testable and verifiable means to prove your assertation that your God does indeed exist as a separate entity separate from human brains.

As for giving us "logic proof", all you gave us was though excercises that make sense only to yourself.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 02:35:20 PM
Not quite. I gave you logical proof that need to be refuted if you want me to accept they are not proof of the existence of God.
Your "philosophical conjecture" doesn't mean it is not proof.
I am ready to debate their veracity if you want but as you might know these do not have a definite answer because you are asking for proof of something immaterial to exist outside of our brain. And you know that only one thing answer this definition. God.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 26, 2014, 02:40:03 PM
Not quite. I gave you logical proof that need to be refuted if you want me to accept they are not proof of the existence of God.
Your "philosophical conjecture" doesn't mean it is not proof.
I am ready to debate their veracity if you want but as you might know these do not have a definite answer because you are asking for proof of something immaterial to exist outside of our brain. And you know that only one thing answer this definition. God.

So you have ignored my post which would help us all with this question. Could you answer the points below now so we know where things are going, please?

Quote
Well, I'm sure that's the excuse that will be used but it remains the case that if the supposed god cannot interact with the material world we

a. cannot know of his existence

b. it would not be the god Christians claim to know as they say their god interacts with the world via prayer and actual changes to the material world like healing people for example.

No, if anyone claims a god that interacts with the world, then it should not be much of a job to prove it. Of course, if this god is only an idea in the brains of believers......

Thanks
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 02:48:18 PM
I did not ignore any post. I don't see any questions asked in the quote you gave us.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 02:58:56 PM
Not quite. I gave you logical proof that need to be refuted if you want me to accept they are not proof of the existence of God.
Your "philosophical conjecture" doesn't mean it is not proof.
I am ready to debate their veracity if you want but as you might know these do not have a definite answer because you are asking for proof of something immaterial to exist outside of our brain. .

Your philosophical conjecture does not equate to proof. I have already refuted each and every point you had made in your OP. If you disagree with my rebuttal, you will have to explain why, point by point. Get cracking.

The ball is now once again in your court.

Quote
And you know that only one thing answer this definition. God

That's quite a bold statement on your part. It's also completely erroneous.

Here's one of my own: You have presented no proof God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
You did not refute anything. You expressed your disagreement with what I said. Oh wait, that wasn't you. Sorry.
You didn't give me enough proof to debunk my proofs.
Call it Lucy, I'll call it God. The name "god" is slapped on whatever fits the definition.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 03:16:16 PM
You did not refute anything. You expressed your disagreement with what I said. Oh wait, that wasn't you. Sorry.
You didn't give me enough proof to debunk my proofs.

Not good enough. Explain why I failed to debunk your proofs. Point by point.

Quote
Call it Lucy, I'll call it God. The name "god" is slapped on whatever fits the definition.

And this explains "Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?" how again? It doesn't.

Try again.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
I can try as much as I want. As long a you don't know what you want I will try in vain.
What kind of evidence will you prove you the existence of something immaterial existing outside your brain?
If you say none, then you should accept the evidence that I brought you as enough.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 04:08:57 PM
I can try as much as I want. As long a you don't know what you want I will try in vain.
What kind of evidence will you prove you the existence of something immaterial existing outside your brain?
If you say none, then you should accept the evidence that I brought you as enough.

Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence. The same standards we hold our scientists to when presenting any claim.

Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 26, 2014, 04:12:43 PM
I can try as much as I want. As long a you don't know what you want I will try in vain.
What kind of evidence will you prove you the existence of something immaterial existing outside your brain?
If you say none, then you should accept the evidence that I brought you as enough.

As I have pointed out -

This immaterial thing can either

a. Interact with the material world - like you say your god can

OR

b. Cannot interact with the material world.

To prove your god comes into a. which I presume you do, simply demonstrate that your god can interact with the material world. You could do this lots of ways, for example

1. Show how a person supposedly healed by god was actually healed, in other words, what actual actions did god make that changed the body to heal it. (for this one it is no use saying that we don't know as that could be the body healing itself without outside intervention).

2. In regards to prayer, lots of people claim to hear god reply in some way to their prayers and, presumably, god must be able to hear the payers too. Show by what means messages - either in the brain as chemical / electrical signals or words spoken get to an immaterial god or, slightly simpler, show how  a person 'hears' a reply which must interact with the brain tissue in some way.

I'm sure you could think of other ideas but there's a couple to start on.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 26, 2014, 04:29:04 PM
I can try as much as I want. As long a you don't know what you want I will try in vain.
What kind of evidence will you prove you the existence of something immaterial existing outside your brain?
If you say none, then you should accept the evidence that I brought you as enough.

You are telling us that there is a being or force that is more powerful than anything human beings can create, more powerful than a nuclear bomb, that interacts with humans on a regular basis. However, this force or being does not want people to know about it, so it leaves no physical trace? There is no way to detect this force or being, even as it goes into people's brains and makes them behave better, makes them feel happier, cures dandruff, heals the odd cancer?

If it interacts with people, than it can be detected in some way. It can be measured in some way. It can be tested in some way to show that it was god and not something else.

Lukvance, you are saying that the interactions of god are 1) imaginary, or 2) so small that they cannot be detected, or 3)consisting of normal everyday things that anyone can do--like not bumping into furniture. 

The universe looks kind of the way it would look if there was no god. There is still no reason to think that there is any supernatural powerful god doing anything, anywhere. There is certainly no reason to think that your particular god is doing anything, anywhere.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 04:49:45 PM
Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence. The same standards we hold our scientists to when presenting any claim.

Alright, how did scientist prove the existence of "1"? using Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence? I'm not so sure.
What about the existence of mathematics?  using Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence? Not so sure either.
They found out that it existed and gave it a name. That's it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 26, 2014, 05:02:11 PM
No they invented maths in their mind, it just so happens to be used to label real things.  one rabbit is not the number one. .
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 05:03:36 PM
This immaterial thing can either
a. Interact with the material world - like you say your god can
OR
b. Cannot interact with the material world.
I'm incline to say b) But there is this "God made it all" thing. So, he wrote the code of everything and hit run.
Quote
I'm sure you could think of other ideas but there's a couple to start on.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 05:10:45 PM
If it interacts with people, than it can be detected in some way. It can be measured in some way. It can be tested in some way
Like what else? I can't think of anything immaterial that could.
Quote
to show that it was god and not something else.
What if the something else was just a consequence of God's will?

Quote
Lukvance, you are saying that the interactions of god are 1) imaginary, or 2) so small that they cannot be detected, or 3)consisting of normal everyday things that anyone can do--like not bumping into furniture.
4) Indirect would be a better word.

Quote
The universe looks kind of the way it would look if there was no god. There is still no reason to think that there is any supernatural powerful god doing anything, anywhere. There is certainly no reason to think that your particular god is doing anything, anywhere.
How do you know that? Can you compare it with another universe? When I look at the Universe and how well balanced (or unbalanced) it is, I think there must be a "code writer" behind the scene.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 05:10:51 PM
Alright, how did scientist prove the existence of "1"? using Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence? I'm not so sure.

"I'm not so sure"? Either they did or they didn't. Which one is it? This might help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

Quote
What about the existence of mathematics?  using Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence? Not so sure either.
They found out that it existed and gave it a name. That's it.
I really suggest you become familiar with an example before you chose to use it to make a point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics)

You can really save us all a lot of time and frustration by admitting that your concept of "God" cannot be proven through the scientific method (which goes beyond philosophical conjecture) to exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

Go ahead and try it yourself. Run your "God" through the scientific method and see if he meets the same standard that scientists are held to when investigating and testing a new claim.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 05:15:06 PM
The housework won't do itself, so I'll leave others to carry on the conversation for the time being.

I will state my stance again. Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence is what I am asking for.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 05:46:28 PM
Quote
Alright, how did scientist prove the existence of "1"? using Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence? I'm not so sure.
"I'm not so sure"? Either they did or they didn't. Which one is it? This might help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
This is not proof that they did.

Quote
Quote
What about the existence of mathematics?  using Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence? Not so sure either.
They found out that it existed and gave it a name. That's it.
I really suggest you become familiar with an example before you chose to use it to make a point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics)
What do you mean? This link is the Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence?

Quote
You can really save us all a lot of time and frustration by admitting that your concept of "God" cannot be proven through the scientific method (which goes beyond philosophical conjecture) to exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
I could. But I want you to realize first that nothing immaterial can be proven that way.
So, accept that nothing immaterial can be proven using Testable, Measurable, Quantifiable, Verifiable evidence and we can move back to my first statement. The existence of God by it's definition.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 06:00:21 PM
Oh! Just found that Video. Just on time. Math is everything? :)
http://youtu.be/HGG4HmlotJE
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 26, 2014, 06:38:45 PM
So, math is god? I thought love was god. God made the universe out of math?

Is everything immaterial god? I am now really confused. What is god, again? And why should we care?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 07:06:22 PM
God : the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
If you want to learn more about God and the reasons why so many believe in him you should stick around.
If you don't care, it's ok too. You can continue to live a happy life respecting your conscience.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 09:06:21 PM
This is not proof that they did.

Explain why.

Quote
What do you mean? This link is the Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence?

You brought up mathematics. The link explains how, unlike your concept of "God", that mathematics are testable, measurable, quantifiable and verifiable. Mathematics, also unlike your concept of "God", is constant. 1+1 will still equal 2 no matter where you go in the universe.

The definition of "God", however, varies from individual to individual even if by a minor amount. Using your own ontological argument, therefore there must exist as many versions of "God" as there are individual definitions of said God: all separate entities separate from the human brain.
Is this not the case, according to your argument? If you say no, then your argument is inconsistently and prejudiciously applied and therefore made invalid. If you say yes, then your personal interpretation of "God" has some stiff competition for the title of #1 deity in the universe.

Which is it, Luk?

Quote
I could. But I want you to realize first that nothing immaterial can be proven that way.

Nothing? You sure? Poltergeists by their definition are also immaterial, yet can manipulate objects and interact with their environment which can most definitely be tested and verified using equipment such as EMF Meters, Full Spectrum Cams, EVP Recorders, etc.

Mind you, I do not believe in poltergeists, but then again I am not the one "defining" them in to existence.

Quote
So, accept that nothing immaterial can be proven using Testable, Measurable, Quantifiable, Verifiable evidence and we can move back to my first statement.

See above.

Quote
The existence of God by it's definition.

...Which I have already shown in my first response, philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does not equate to evidence.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 09:17:28 PM
 I don't think we have the same definition of testable.
How can you test the existence of mathematics? Or is it test mathematics? Or... I don't know what testable stand for according to mathematics. Maybe if you give me an example of how mathematics are testable I could give you one equivalent where God is testable.
Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 09:38:03 PM
I don't think we have the same definition of testable.
How can you test the existence of mathematics? Or is it test mathematics? Or... I don't know what testable stand for according to mathematics. Maybe if you give me an example of how mathematics are testable I could give you one equivalent where God is testable.

Count your fingers. One, two, three, four, five. Count your fingers on your other hand. One, two, three, four, five. How many fingers do you have total? Ten?

Do it again. Still come up with ten?

Walk in to another part of your house and repeat the experiment. Still 10 fingers?

You have just tested and verified mathematics. A repeatable result that comes out the same no matter who performs the experiment (as long as they have 10 fingers. 5+5 will always =10) or where they happen to be.

Now, your turn.

Quote
Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings.

According to who?

Two questions. One: does philosophical conjecture and personal opinion equate to evidence when talking about material beings? Would philosophical conjecture and personal opinion be enough to prove a material entity exists?

Two: can your definition of "God" interact with the environment? Can He manipulate physical objects? I would assume if a mere poltergeist can, an all-mighty deity such as your God most certainly can.

If so, then your God can most certainly be scrutinized and verified using the scientific method. Examples, please.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on May 26, 2014, 09:40:18 PM
DoS,you can't fix stupid.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 09:42:45 PM
DoS,you can't fix stupid.

What can I say? I'm a masochist. 8)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 09:43:16 PM
DoS,you can't fix stupid.
Don't despair. You're not that stupid.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 09:52:58 PM
Count your fingers. One, two, three, four, five. Count your fingers on your other hand. One, two, three, four, five. How many fingers do you have total? Ten?
I will stop you there. I am playing devils advocate and saying that mathematics don't exist and you are trying to prove that it does, right? So i can't count.
Your turn again.

Quote
Quote
Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings.
According to who?
To me.

Quote
does philosophical conjecture and personal opinion equate to evidence when talking about material beings? Would philosophical conjecture and personal opinion be enough to prove a material entity exists?
For me yes. As per the example of the car that my parents bought me.

Quote
can your definition of "God" interact with the environment? Can He manipulate physical objects? I would assume if a mere poltergeist can, an all-mighty deity such as your God most certainly can.
He can, but won't. He will use me instead.
This immaterial thing can either
a. Interact with the material world - like you say your god can
OR
b. Cannot interact with the material world.
I'm incline to say b) But there is this "God made it all" thing. So, he wrote the code of everything and hit run.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 26, 2014, 10:27:42 PM
I will stop you there. I am playing devils advocate and saying that mathematics don't exist and you are trying to prove that it does, right? So i can't count.
Your turn again.

That's the beauty of the scientific method, Luk! I can perform the same experiment right before your very eyes! But, wait! I wouldn't expect you to trust my fingers, so I then repeat the experiment using your fingers to get the same, exact result! And should you still be a little... slow on the uptake, I or anyone else can continue this experiment until you can finally figure it out or... well, I suppose some people just refuse to accept math in to their lives.... ;)

Back to you.

Quote
Quote
Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings.
According to who? To me.

Your response actually made me laugh... until I realized you were not purposefully trying to be humorous. Are you appealing to yourself as an authority? Care to back that up with some credentials?

Quote
For me yes. As per the example of the car that my parents bought me.

Is this an example from another thread, because I do not recall reading it. Anywho, then you would then have no problem accepting that, say, the Frankenstein monster exists as a physical entity as long as you trust the opinion of the person imparting this information and can provide a definition that points to his existence? I know this has been addressed by other posters, but the term that applies is "gullible".

Quote
He can, but won't. He will use me instead.
This immaterial thing can either
a. Interact with the material world - like you say your god can
OR
b. Cannot interact with the material world.
I'm incline to say b) But there is this "God made it all" thing. So, he wrote the code of everything and hit run.

Ah! Thank you! This does help move the conversation along. A problem, though. A few, actually.

Are you privy to how your concept of God operates at all times? Has your concept of God specifically told you that he will operate through you and you alone?

What you were describing sounds an awful like the Deist view of a creator-type entity, such as the one Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin believed in (He got the universe running, then stepped aside). But then there is this whole "Jesus" thing. The very fact that the Virgin Mary... a physical entity... was inflicted with God's son would appear to me that your concept of God... in spite of being an immaterial entity... was capable of interacting with the material world.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 26, 2014, 11:14:20 PM
Yeah-- pregnancy is a pretty clear piece of evidence that god was a separate entity interacting in the world. Can't deny a birth, although many men have tried.... :angel:

A god made someone pregnant. A common occurrence in ancient times, if you look at various different cultures. Seems that a lot of women were trying to deny something as well.... :angel:

Funny how the gods have gone all celibate since we have the scientific method, DNA testing and ultrasound to show whether the daddy was human. ;)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 26, 2014, 11:15:29 PM
I will stop you there. I am playing devils advocate and saying that mathematics don't exist and you are trying to prove that it does, right? So i can't count.
Your turn again.

That's the beauty of the scientific method, Luk! I can perform the same experiment right before your very eyes! But, wait! I wouldn't expect you to trust my fingers, so I then repeat the experiment using your fingers to get the same, exact result! And should you still be a little... slow on the uptake, I or anyone else can continue this experiment until you can finally figure it out or... well, I suppose some people just refuse to accept math in to their lives.... ;)

Back to you.
Great.
God is a little like math. You can pray him in the living room listen and hear him. Change room and pray him again, listen, you'll hear him. Same result every time.
I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God or... well, I suppose some people just refuse to accept God in to their lives.... ;)

Quote
Your response actually made me laugh... until I realized you were not purposefully trying to be humorous. Are you appealing to yourself as an authority? Care to back that up with some credentials?
I was trying to be humorous by imitating you :s

Quote
Is this an example from another thread, because I do not recall reading it. Anywho, then you would then have no problem accepting that, say, the Frankenstein monster exists as a physical entity as long as you trust the opinion of the person imparting this information and can provide a definition that points to his existence? I know this has been addressed by other posters, but the term that applies is "gullible".
Not every thing apply, I agree. The example of the car is the following. My parents call me and tell me that they just bought me a red car. This car is real per their testimony only.

Quote
Are you privy to how your concept of God operates at all times? Has your concept of God specifically told you that he will operate through you and you alone?
Hmm we (believers) have access to some part of the code that non believer don't have access to.

Quote
What you were describing sounds an awful like the Deist view of a creator-type entity, such as the one Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin believed in (He got the universe running, then stepped aside). But then there is this whole "Jesus" thing. The very fact that the Virgin Mary... a physical entity... was inflicted with God's son would appear to me that your concept of God... in spite of being an immaterial entity... was capable of interacting with the material world.
Note that it was the angel who interacted, not him. Mary being pregnant is a miracle. Miracles happen in the world every day. I think that they do because we believer can access that part of the code that non believer don't have access to.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jesuis on May 26, 2014, 11:48:51 PM
Energy cannot prove to anyone that it exists nor can it explain why it cannot disappear into oblivion or behaves the way it does like change from one form to another - yet it does.

Gravity cannot prove to anyone or anything in the universe that it exists yet it holds the sun, planets, moons and asteroids in there orbits and creates universes such as the milky way etc.. For whatever reason it does this if it did not we would be annihilated or there would be little chance for life to exist.
 
Again when it comes to the desire in human mind. No one knows what it is or how it dominates one desire type over another. What we do know is that it makes a pedophile unacceptable to a civilized society and we also know that a rapist or a thief are also not acceptable for that society.

Theists such as Jesus, Buddha, Nanak, Mahavira etc have stated that these states of mind can be overcome if we train the mind we have been given - that there are laws governing consciousness trapped in matter. That our consciousness of soul is a part of God and that our mind and its desires are a tool of the negative power that has created this illusion.

Desire like gravity attracts our attention to matter and indulges our attention in it. We have to teach it moderation. We have to teach it to bring balance, that fr every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Most Humans cannot prove anything about their consciousness yet others know that they have it. God does not exists outside all of these states nor does it exists beyond it. It is a part of it - it is consciously aware of it yet devoid of a mind to exact judgement.

Judgement is a mind tool given to souls to experience but there is a problem with this tool. Judgement!
Theists say in order to combat this problem of mind that we should practice forgiveness.

Forgiveness and universal love are the only things that can take the souls back to God. Those that judge are doing the devils work of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. Beware of this trap when you are in this world.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on May 27, 2014, 12:12:29 AM
Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings.

No. No. No. No. No. Conjecture and opinion are NOT evidence when you are making extraordinary claims about "immaterial things". You haven't even come close to defining what "immaterial" IS! Your sir have a hypocritically low standard when it comes to such claims. Your personal subjective intuition (and opinion) are neither evidence nor a sufficient standard for determining is there are "immaterial things".

Furthermore, I rebutted your attempts at the classical arguments for a God in my first response - to which you conveniently ignored them.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on May 27, 2014, 12:16:26 AM
Beside testimony and logic there are no other evidence for the existence of something immaterial outside your brain.
I gave you testimony.
I gave you logic proof.
What more do you want? The impossible? The thing that even yourself cannot conceive?
You want me to respond to what? I don't see any question.

Testimony alone is unreliable for separating fact from fiction with such claims and you did not give a logical proof. You gave "because I say so". Those are completely different sir, sorry. The reasons you have attempted to give have been fallacious and those fallacies have been dully noted throughout. Yet still, in hard headed fashion you persist in maintaining this delusion that you have "proved it". No, you haven't proved it. You have merely asserted that you have proved it.


Btw, your video does not prove that math exists as an independent entity (as per this OP). So you are using a false analogy (another logical fallacy). Notice how the video even points out how math "describes" things. We humans do the describing and that is because math (like logic) is a human invented LANGUAGE. It is a linguistic tool (a set of mental abilities which are the functions of physical brains doing calculations), kind of like the ability to swing a hammer. This is nowhere near your "God" assertion. So please come off it.

If you think math exists as an independent "thing" then you will need to demonstrate that TOO.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 27, 2014, 03:03:16 AM
This immaterial thing can either
a. Interact with the material world - like you say your god can
OR
b. Cannot interact with the material world.
I'm incline to say b) But there is this "God made it all" thing. So, he wrote the code of everything and hit run.


Ah, so you believe in a Deist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) god and not the usual god of Christianity?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: epidemic on May 27, 2014, 10:44:06 AM
If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

Ok I am imagining a God that can not only create a universe but one who can kill the god of Abraham.  My imagined god can make a rock so big that your god can not move it.  My imagined god also does not want worship nor to kill your god because he is all powerful and he created your god exactly as he desired. 

I guess I imagined it so it is true and separate from my mind??? 
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 27, 2014, 10:48:25 AM
God is a little like math. You can pray him in the living room listen and hear him. Change room and pray him again, listen, you'll hear him. Same result every time.

Oh, I can completely agree with you here! I can pray, pray pray all the day long and get the same result no matter where I am. Nothing. :)

Quote
I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God or... well, I suppose some people just refuse to accept God in to their lives.... ;)

You see, Luk... and I do not fault you for being unaware of this, although I did post not to long ago my story how I became an atheist... I used to believe in a "God" concept. I really did. Up until the age of 14 I (excuse the pun) religiously said The Lord's Prayer every night before going to bed... followed by "God, please look after my mom, my dad, my sisters, my grandpa, my grandma...." while continuously adding more names to the list of people I wanted "God" to keep safe from harm (friends, cousins, favorite teachers) until, I kid you not, it took about two minutes of reciting names before I was finished.

Want to take a guess as to whether or not during the course of all those years my prayers got the same result every time?

Back to your "challenge". So now you are saying that your concept of "God" can be tested using the scientific method? You already know that you are setting myself up for failure. You already know that I lack belief in your concept of "God" due to your continuous failure to provide even the minutest shred of Testable. Measurable. Quantifiable. Verifiable evidence myself and other atheists on the Forum has requested. And even if I was swayed by your philosophical conjectures and personal opinions, my "God" concept I would have "defined" in to being as a separate entity - separate from my human brain would then be at odds with your 'God" concept.

So, I have a better challenge. You concept of "God"... in spite of your protests that as an immaterial being He cannot be proven through the scientific method... apparently can interact with yourself and your environment. According to your previous posts, He seemingly had enough free time to prevent you from stubbing your toe, so this should be of no effort to him.

Pray to your concept of God to either directly or indirectly provide you with my home telephone number, then give me a call (I'll even give you my permission to call collect). Make sure you have a recorder handy to record the evidence of our conversation. I'll then be more than happy to have you teach me how to hear "God". :)

Quote
God is a little like math

In the fashion that just like 2+2=5, something just doesn't add up. ;)

Quote
I was trying to be humorous by imitating you :s

Imitation as a form of sarcasm only works if I had attempted to cite myself as the sole authority behind my opinions, which I have not. So, sah-wing an' a miss.

Quote
This car is real per their testimony only.

Up until you were able to verify said testimony with an actual red car being produced, yes?

I have heard your testimony that there your concept of "God" separate from your brain. Will you produce Him for me to verify? Can you?

Quote
Hmm we (believers) have access to some part of the code that non believer don't have access to.

Not what I had asked, Luk. Remember, it was you who stated "He can, but won't. He will use me instead. in regards to whether or not he is capable of directly interacting with the material world. Again,  are you privy to your concept of "God's" actions at all times to confidently say he only acts indirectlythrough you or other believers such as yourself?

Quote
Note that it was the angel who interacted, not him. Mary being pregnant is a miracle. Miracles happen in the world every day. I think that they do because we believer can access that part of the code that non believer don't have access to.

Actually, according to Luke 1:35, it was the "Holy Ghost" that did the deed:

Quote
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,

That's funny, I thought Ghosts were immaterial, too. Care to explain how this "Holy Ghost" was able to directly interact with a physical being (Mary) while your concept of "God" only chooses to work indirectly through you (as you have claimed)?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 27, 2014, 10:51:06 AM
If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

Ok I am imagining a God that can not only create a universe but one who can kill the god of Abraham.  My imagined god can make a rock so big that your god can not move it.  My imagined god also does not want worship nor to kill your god because he is all powerful and he created your god exactly as he desired. 

I guess I imagined it so it is true and separate from my mind???

Keep hammering this home. He has so far completely ignored this point every time it is brought up.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 27, 2014, 10:58:37 AM
Huh! That's nothing Epidemic! My imagined god is so great that he created your god and Abraham's god and could swallow this whole universe in a flash! He is, of course, the greatest conceivable being so has to exist in reality and not just as a thought. Sorry about that.

Over to you, Luk! You god is starting to look small!
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 27, 2014, 11:11:30 AM
Huh! That's nothing Epidemic! My imagined god is so great that he created your god and Abraham's god and could swallow this whole universe in a flash! He is, of course, the greatest conceivable being so has to exist in reality and not just as a thought. Sorry about that.

Oh... oh, yeah?? Well, did YOUR god get mentioned in a Beatles song like my fabulous Goddess Lucy Intheskywithdiamonds did? 8)

So, neener neener neener! :P
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 27, 2014, 11:14:38 AM
Bother!  ;D
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 27, 2014, 01:39:54 PM
Ah, so you believe in a Deist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) god and not the usual god of Christianity?
1. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 27, 2014, 01:44:43 PM
Ok I am imagining a God that can not only create a universe but one who can kill the god of Abraham.  My imagined god can make a rock so big that your god can not move it.  My imagined god also does not want worship nor to kill your god because he is all powerful and he created your god exactly as he desired. 

I guess I imagined it so it is true and separate from my mind???
So you are imagining a god that can win against the invincible? If it's the case then the supposedly invincible god wasn't one. He wasn't the god of Abraham. The first one you imagined is closer to the god of Abraham than the other one you imagined.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on May 27, 2014, 02:16:00 PM
So you are imagining a god that can win against the invincible? If it's the case then the supposedly invincible god wasn't one. He wasn't the god of Abraham. The first one you imagined is closer to the god of Abraham than the other one you imagined.

yhwh, the god of abraham was not invincible.  For one, guys in iron chariots defeated him.  For two, he lost against a king because he sacrificed his son to another god.  For three, Marduk stomped the shit out of the hebrews and burned yhwh's house - the temple - to the ground.  And for the coup de gras, yhwh cannot be in the presence of sin.  So if you ever want a little "me time" without yhwh poking is big, jewish nose into your business, introduce a little sin.  Yhwh will flee like a vampire from garlic.

This does not even get into all the ways yhwh was a complete and total failure.

Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on May 27, 2014, 02:23:08 PM
This does not even get into all the ways yhwh was a complete and total failure.
While this may not be complete either, it is a rather fascinating read into just how bad god is at, well, practically everything:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/an-almighty-screwup/
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 27, 2014, 02:26:45 PM
God is a little like math. You can pray him in the living room listen and hear him. Change room and pray him again, listen, you'll hear him. Same result every time.
Oh, I can completely agree with you here! I can pray, pray pray all the day long and get the same result no matter where I am. Nothing. :)
You misread me. I said that you'll hear him...
I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God or... well, I suppose some people just refuse to accept God in to their lives.... ;)

Quote
Want to take a guess as to whether or not during the course of all those years my prayers got the same result every time?
God won't protect people against their will. He can protect you.
I could have said the same thing about math. "When I was 14 I tried and tried and tried, but nothing..."

Quote
Back to your "challenge".
Which one? the one where I ask you to prove the existence of Math outside your mind?
That one? :
I don't think we have the same definition of testable.
How can you test the existence of mathematics? Or is it test mathematics? Or... I don't know what testable stand for according to mathematics. Maybe if you give me an example of how mathematics are testable I could give you one equivalent where God is testable.


Quote
So now you are saying that your concept of "God" can be tested using the scientific method?
No I'm not. Where?

Quote
Pray to your concept of God to either directly or indirectly provide you with my home telephone number, then give me a call (I'll even give you my permission to call collect). Make sure you have a recorder handy to record the evidence of our conversation. I'll then be more than happy to have you teach me how to hear "God". :)
No. You won't impose you will on me. I won't impose mine on you.

Quote
Quote
Hmm we (believers) have access to some part of the code that non believer don't have access to.
Not what I had asked, Luk. Remember, it was you who stated "He can, but won't. He will use me instead. in regards to whether or not he is capable of directly interacting with the material world. Again,  are you privy to your concept of "God's" actions at all times to confidently say he only acts indirectly through you or other believers such as yourself?
Then I don't understand the question.
Quote
That's funny, I thought Ghosts were immaterial, too. Care to explain how this "Holy Ghost" was able to directly interact with a physical being (Mary) while your concept of "God" only chooses to work indirectly through you (as you have claimed)?
Me or any believer (Mary was a believer) SO God worked through her to bring Jesus into this world. He didn't make Jesus appear out of nowhere. (even if he could've)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 27, 2014, 08:30:02 PM
Lukvance are you going to answer the original question or not? You have brought up numbers and gravity and other things, trying to compare them to your idea of god.

That does not answer the question. Here it is: Does your god (not love, not numbers or math or gravity) exist outside of people's brains? Yes or no?

If no, then we are in agreement, because nobody has been able to demonstrate any god's existence outside of people's brains.  People can act as if there is such a being; people thought Zeus, Ra or Queztacoatl were real; they spent years constructing temples, altars, statues etc. in their honor. They even made human sacrifices, thinking that they had to do those things or suffer some terrible fate, maybe the gods would destroy the world. But when people stopped believing in them and stopped worshipping them, the world just continued on. That leads us to think that there were no such beings in any real physical sense.

If your god is different from those other gods, does he exist in a real, physical sense?  If not, in what sense does he exist outside of people's brains? Does your god interact with people's cells or brain chemicals or molecules or what? How would someone know that an invisible, immaterial, non-physical magical person was there, if he does not interact with people physically?

If you come back with something off the wall and unrelated to the main question (like how love is immaterial, or about how numbers do or do not exist) we will have to conclude that you do not want to give an honest, thoughtful answer. Because any honest, thoughtful answer would lead you somewhere you do not want to go.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 27, 2014, 10:19:55 PM
Lukvance are you going to answer the original question or not?
Already did, on the very first post.
Quote
You have brought up numbers and gravity and other things, trying to compare them to your idea of god.
No I did not. I answered using the example from someone else.
Quote
That does not answer the question. Here it is: Does your god (not love, not numbers or math or gravity) exist outside of people's brains? Yes or no?
Yes.
Quote
If your god is different from those other gods, does he exist in a real, physical sense?
No. He is immaterial.
Quote
in what sense does he exist outside of people's brains?
I don't understand the question. Examples?
Quote
Does your god interact with people's cells or brain chemicals or molecules or what?
Not directly. He won't change your molecules (beside the rare occasion of miracles) directly. Or maybe he would. I'm not sure.
Quote
How would someone know that an invisible, immaterial, non-physical magical person was there, if he does not interact with people physically?
He made the universe, creating, as the real sense of the term, what we call the initial movement. He has sent people who interacted directly with him (prophets) and these people used their voice to tell the world what he wanted them to hear thus interacting with the world. He was made flesh in Jesus and interacted with thousands of people. Today there are people we call saints that can be used as examples (like mother Theresa) of how God would want us to behave. By using them he interact with us. And there are miracles.[1] And as it is said so perfectly in the catechism :
"28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind""[2]
 1.  like the Eucharist, every day where you can physically touch God and look at him and taste him. But that's only for true believers, the OT III's of Christianity :)
 2. 156 : http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm#156
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 27, 2014, 10:59:30 PM
Evidence yaweh made the universe please .
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 01:21:10 AM
Evidence yaweh made the universe please .
Maybe you can't read. Let me quote it for you :
Or using the start of everything.
Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 28, 2014, 02:45:03 AM
I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God or... well, I suppose some people just refuse to accept God in to their lives.... ;)

How telling that you completely ignored the part in my last post mentioning that for the first 14 years of my existence I did indeed accept "God" in to my life. I sincerely believed in a loving father-figure type entity that would answer my prayers. And still I never once "heard" him. And still slowly but surely... a few of those people I had asked him to keep from harm either suffered from an illness, accident or even died of non-natural causes. Perhaps I was asking this omnipotent creator too much. Perhaps I should have kept things simple, like praying for me not to stub my toe.

Which leads us to this next "gem" of yours:

Quote
God won't protect people against their will. He can protect you.

If I prayed for God to keep from harm a loved one of mine who also believes in God, then by your logic his (God's) interference to keep them from harm would not only not be against their will, but would be graciously accepted, wouldn't you agree? After all, the logical opposite of your statement "God won't protect people against their will" is "God will protect people if it is their will".

And even if the subject of the prayer to be kept from harm was a non-believer or even a member of a different faith, that at the very instant when a prayer to keep a particular individual safe... say, in a horrific automobile accident... at any point said person is thinking anything along the lines of "You don't have my permission to intercede, God!" (against their will) is ludicrous, don't you think? "There are no atheists in foxholes", as the adage goes.

Quote
Which one? the one where I ask you to prove the existence of Math outside your mind?

Nope:

You can pray him in the living room listen and hear him. Change room and pray him again, listen, you'll hear him. Same result every time.
I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God

You had proposed a hypothesis (to pray and listen and you will hear "God") by performing an experiment (testable) that would get the same result every time (verifiable). Whether knowingly or not, you had called upon the scientific method to make your case and I had accepted your challenge. So, go ahead. Prove it.

Quote
No I'm not. Where?

Yes you were. See above.

Quote
No. You won't impose you will on me. I won't impose mine on you.

One: I am not imposing anything. Consider it a suggestion.

Two. I am giving you my permission of my own free will.

Don't you have faith in your concept of "God" to be able to perform such a tiny miracle?

Quote
Then I don't understand the question.

My initial question:
Quote
Can your definition of "God" interact with the environment? Can He manipulate physical objects?

Your response:
Quote
He can, but won't. He will use me instead.

My follow up question:
Quote
Are you privy to how your concept of God operates at all times? Has your concept of God specifically told you that he will operate through you and you alone?

It's a yes or no question. I though you loved these types of questions?

Quote
Me or any believer (Mary was a believer) SO God worked through her to bring Jesus into this world. He didn't make Jesus appear out of nowhere. (even if he could've)

But you had previously stated that, and I quote, "He can, but won't" in regards to interacting with objects (or entities) or the environment:

He can, but won't. He will use me instead.
This immaterial thing can either
a. Interact with the material world - like you say your god can
OR
b. Cannot interact with the material world.
I'm incline to say b) But there is this "God made it all" thing. So, he wrote the code of everything and hit run.
[/b]

Here, you have just stated that he directly interacted with Mary ("God worked through her "). So, obviously he both can and will interact with the material world when the mood suits him. So, since he has interacted with the material world (thus leaving behind "evidence"), it then follows that the actions ascribed to your concept of "God" are indeed susceptible to being proven or disproven through the scientific method.

<edited for spelling male instead of make>
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on May 28, 2014, 03:18:08 AM
Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.

This is just an assertion (a "because I say so"), and I already rebutted it in my first post to you in this OP. Why have you ignored it? If all you're going to do is merely ASSERT crap without evidence why bother debating here?

Btw, you seem to be arbitrarily excluding other possibilities - including that matter/energy (in some form) may have always existed. So merely asserting a "God" thing does nothing. It's just another one of your CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 28, 2014, 03:47:53 AM
Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.

Oooh! I smell the[wiki] Kalam Argument[/wiki]! Is this what you are thinking of, Luk. If so, let's have a new thread for it. Be warned though, each premise has been debunked.

Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on May 28, 2014, 03:51:36 AM

Quote
If your god is different from those other gods, does he exist in a real, physical sense?
No. He is immaterial.


Here I repost from another thread:

In order for something to be a "being" it must have attributes (positive identifiable characteristics). Please demonstrate such characteristics for your alleged "God" thing. As others have noted, if your alleged deity has no identifiable characteristics (and does not clearly demonstrably manifest in the world - in non-vague fashion) then it is no different from fiction. Please note that I am not asking you for what this alleged deity DOES. I am asking you to demonstrate what this alleged deity IS. What is it made of? If you attempt to argue that it is made of "immaterial stuff" then you haven't given any positive attributes because "immaterial" is a negative term (i.e. - without material). You need to provide POSITIVE characteristics of what makes up this "thing" that allegedly exists independently of human thought (because things are not defined by what they are not. They are defined by what they are).  If you attempt to argue that God is a "spirit", then you will be right back to square one again (because the question will still be unanswered). What IS a "spirit"? What is it made of? What are its positive characteristics? You will need to provide POSITIVE attributes of what an alleged "spirit" actually is, and what its actual characteristics are that can be referenced. Furthermore, even if you could provide a rational definition of such a term you would still have all of your work ahead of you to actually demonstrate that such a conception actually exists independently of human brains.

As such, I maintain that the term "immaterial", just like the terms "God" and "spirit" are meaningless and refer to nothing. x
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 28, 2014, 03:55:00 AM
Lemme guess EVERYTHING that exists must have a beginning, everything that is except the xian god .... and allah. and the rainbow serpent of indigenous Australia and....... no special pleading here.


luk circles exist,  where is the starting point on a circle?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 28, 2014, 04:01:03 AM
You know arguing luk requires no further points, now its all linking back and forth to all the other threads he had repeated himself on.

he even uses his own threads as quotable evidence for the point he is repeating.... see my evidence is my point i made here which is evidenced by the exact same point i linked here.... talk about self referential circularity.... he considers a win when everyone else just gets sick of posting and getting the same response.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 28, 2014, 04:22:25 AM
So Luk's god is immaterial. I looked it up in the Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immaterial) which says -

Quote
immaterial (??m??t??r??l)
adj
1. of no real importance; inconsequential
2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual

You know, I reckon the first definition fits best. His god can apparently not heal anyone as it affects their free will, it cannot do anything in the world as that would affect free will so one can really say that it is immaterial.

As to the second definition, the one Luk means, well it is  philosophical term - in other words it is thought up but has not meaning in the real world as it has not been detected of even shown to exist.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 28, 2014, 04:27:53 AM
What about love and numbers huh???
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 28, 2014, 04:32:11 AM
Luk evidence yaweh and not another god made the universe, you did not answer you repeated yourself, it wasn't an answer the first time repeating doesn't magically make it become correct.

so assuming god made the universe how do you decide which god?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on May 28, 2014, 07:04:19 AM
While this may not be complete either, it is a rather fascinating read into just how bad god is at, well, practically everything:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/an-almighty-screwup/

good link.  Kcrady covered those ideas in one or more posts before too.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Graybeard on May 28, 2014, 07:16:04 AM

Everything have a beginning but one.
Special pleading
Quote
This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.
Circular reasoning

Lukvance:
Hatter has replied to your Original Post at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg617316.html#msg617316

You simply have to accept that Anselm did not do a good job. There is no point trying to use his argument or anyone else's to show there is a god (anyone's god or a god of any sort) other than in your mind.

The mind is where god's live. First we have minds, then we have gods. Gods are the ignorant person's way of explaining why things happen. Gods are the things that punish bad people when we cannot punish them. Gods are the things that look after the poor and stupid on this earth by promising them a life in heaven.

Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 28, 2014, 10:18:16 AM
I agree with Graybeard. Luk's sole reliance on Anselm's ontological argument is a clear example of authoritarianism.
 
Luk,

It's time to get back to your attempt to justify how philosophical conjecture is all that is needed to transform a mental construct ("God") in to "a separate entity separate from human brains".

Here is a rephrased version of Anselm's ontological argument that demonstrates it's faulty logic:

From http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html)

Quote
Anselm’s mistake will become clearer if we define his terms in a less ambiguous way.  I will rename Anselm’s different versions of God, as God-1 and God-2:

God-1 = God who exists in reality (the thing whose existence we are trying to prove).

God-2 = a God who exists only as an idea in the mind.

Now we can rephrase the argument:
1.Nothing greater than God-1 can be imagined
2.God-2 exists. 
3.God-1 is greater than God-2
4.If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1)
5.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God-1
6.Therefore God-1 exists

You can see quite clearly now that the argument is bogus.  Point 4 is where it goes wrong.  It only appears to work because Anselm equivocates about the definitions of God-1 and God-2.  This is what he is doing.  He is trying to make point 4 sound like, “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1” (which would be a contradiction to point 1).  But point 4 only makes sense as “…we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1),” as in my version.  (Otherwise he is actually saying “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1 (i.e., God-1),” which is gibberish.)  He hopes you won’t notice he changed God-2 to God-1 in point 5, setting up the contradiction to point 1.  But he wasn’t talking about God-1 in point 4, so there is no contradiction.  Consequently, point 6 “Therefore God-1 exists,” just doesn’t follow.

You cannot even get past the first step to be able to even use Anselm's ontological argument: provide evidence that your personal concept of "God" in your mind is the correct "definition" to be used in said argument in the first place, as there are as many personal concepts (definitions) of "God" as there are people whether or not they actually believe said "God" exists. Anyone who believes their personal concept of "God" is "a being than which none greater can be imagined" can insert said deity in to the equation and claim "proof" that it is "a separate entity separate from human brains".

Furthermore, you have stated:

Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings.

Since you put such high stock in "definitions"....

Conjecture:

Quote
noun:

an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

synonyms: speculation, guesswork, surmise, fancy, presumption, assumption, theory, postulation, supposition

Opinion:

Quote
noun:

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

synonyms: belief, judgment, thought(s), (way of) thinking, mind, (point of) view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective, persuasion, standpoint;

Evidence:

Quote
noun:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation 

Nowhere in these definitions suggests that conjecture (philosophical or otherwise) and opinion (personal or otherwise) equals evidence (immaterial beings or otherwise).

Oh, and in regards to this being applicable "when you talk about immaterial beings"? That caveat was of your own devising and thus irrelevant without evidence to support your claim.

In conclusion, you have purposefully and willingly supported an argument that is immune to any sort of independent testing and verification of evidence because, as both I and others have claimed, you have no actual evidence to present outside of philosophical conjecture and personal opinion. Period.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 28, 2014, 10:26:08 AM
If anyone can imagine a god greater than Lukvance's god, then the greater-than-Lukvance's-god god has to exist. And it just stomped the sh!t out of Lukvance's god.

Oh well, so much for that......puny god.  &)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 28, 2014, 10:40:51 AM
If anyone can imagine a god greater than Lukvance's god, then the greater-than-Lukvance's-god god has to exist. And it just stomped the sh!t out of Lukvance's god.

Oh well, so much for that......puny god.  &)

+1 for the Hulk reference in "The Avengers". :D

But you're missing the greater point, nogods! There are literally billions upon billions of "Greater than thou" gods (one for each and every person who has ever contemplated what "God" means to them) according to Luk's pet "theory"!

I suggest a "Thunderdome" approach to settling the whole messy affair.  8)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 28, 2014, 10:51:38 AM
If anyone can imagine a god greater than Lukvance's god, then the greater-than-Lukvance's-god god has to exist. And it just stomped the sh!t out of Lukvance's god.

Oh well, so much for that......puny god.  &)

+1 for the Hulk reference in "The Avengers". :D

But you're missing the greater point, nogods! There are literally billions upon billions of "Greater than thou" gods (one for each and every person who has ever contemplated what "God" means to them) according to Luk's pet "theory"!

I suggest a "Thunderdome" approach to settling the whole messy affair.  8)

Infinite gods go in, Hulk comes out! Yeah! ;D
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 01:59:31 PM
How telling that you completely ignored the part in my last post mentioning that for the first 14 years of my existence I did indeed accept "God" in to my life. I sincerely believed in a loving father-figure type entity that would answer my prayers. And still I never once "heard" him. And still slowly but surely... a few of those people I had asked him to keep from harm either suffered from an illness, accident or even died of non-natural causes. Perhaps I was asking this omnipotent creator too much. Perhaps I should have kept things simple, like praying for me not to stub my toe.
I did not forgot about it. I think I addressed it with the equivalent with math. (Still playing the devils advocate, I could say that I learned Math when I was young but it didn't work)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 28, 2014, 02:23:01 PM
the analogy just isn't work and you should give it up. Love and maths are things that happen in our brain - electrical and chemical things. The atheists argue that your god is like that - something else that is part of the workings of the brain but has no independent reality. Apart from medieval philosophy you have not shown us a single reason to suspect that your god exists at all apart from in your brain.

If you really have no evidence for the existence of your god then, clearly, you should be asking yourself why you are not a atheist. Aside from that, atheists are not going to be swayed by arguments that lack evidence.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on May 28, 2014, 04:17:40 PM
How telling that you completely ignored the part in my last post mentioning that for the first 14 years of my existence I did indeed accept "God" in to my life. I sincerely believed in a loving father-figure type entity that would answer my prayers. And still I never once "heard" him. And still slowly but surely... a few of those people I had asked him to keep from harm either suffered from an illness, accident or even died of non-natural causes. Perhaps I was asking this omnipotent creator too much. Perhaps I should have kept things simple, like praying for me not to stub my toe.
I did not forgot about it. I think I addressed it with the equivalent with math. (Still playing the devils advocate, I could say that I learned Math when I was young but it didn't work)

Yes, you could say this. And it would be another false analogy fallacy since you have not shown that "math" or "numbers" exist outside the human brain.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on May 28, 2014, 04:20:39 PM
the analogy just isn't work and you should give it up. Love and maths are things that happen in our brain - electrical and chemical things. The atheists argue that your god is like that - something else that is part of the workings of the brain but has no independent reality. Apart from medieval philosophy you have not shown us a single reason to suspect that your god exists at all apart from in your brain.

If you really have no evidence for the existence of your god then, clearly, you should be asking yourself why you are not a atheist. Aside from that, atheists are not going to be swayed by arguments that lack evidence.

What's even more interesting is that HE started this thread. And he made it specifically pertaining to an alleged "God" that exists independently of human minds. Yet when pressed on this point, he jumps right back into mental concepts again. Odd, isn't it? That should tell us something significant about his position.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 28, 2014, 05:07:26 PM
His argument for god, if you can call it that, is that:

1) lots of other people think there is a god;

2) he is happier if he thinks there is a god;

3) other people told him they also think there is a god; and

4) he doesn't stub his toes if he thinks there is a god.

Plus 5) gravity, math and love are sort of invisible, like god.

Oh yeah, there is also the part about him picking the Catholic version because they allow him to eat bacon. Note to Lukvance: atheists also allow you to eat bacon.[pornographic reference to other things atheists would allow him to eat removed in deference to younger or more sensitive viewers.]

Did I cover the salient points of the past couple hundred posts?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 05:16:58 PM
Which leads us to this next "gem" of yours:
Quote from: Lukvance
God won't protect people against their will. He can protect you.
Quote from: Disciple of Sagan
If I prayed for God to keep from harm a loved one of mine who also believes in God, then by your logic his (God's) interference to keep them from harm would not only not be against their will, but would be graciously accepted, wouldn't you agree? After all, the logical opposite of your statement "God won't protect people against their will" is "God will protect people if it is their will".

Yes, God can protect you if you want. You don't know the state of the other person. Don't pray for God to protect someone else. Pray God to help you protect someone else.

Quote
And even if the subject of the prayer to be kept from harm was a non-believer or even a member of a different faith, that at the very instant when a prayer to keep a particular individual safe... say, in a horrific automobile accident... at any point said person is thinking anything along the lines of "You don't have my permission to intercede, God!" (against their will) is ludicrous, don't you think? "There are no atheists in foxholes", as the adage goes.
You are right. The person is not thinking "God help me" neither. Or "please, God, do what is best for me" neither. Anyway, the accident is already a consequence of someone saying no to God.

Quote from: Disciple of Sagan
Nope:
You can pray him in the living room listen and hear him. Change room and pray him again, listen, you'll hear him. Same result every time.
I can perform the same experiment right before your eyes. You can too, you might have trouble at first but anyone can learn how to pray God
You had proposed a hypothesis (to pray and listen and you will hear "God") by performing an experiment (testable) that would get the same result every time (verifiable). Whether knowingly or not, you had called upon the scientific method to make your case and I had accepted your challenge. So, go ahead. Prove it.
Err, isn't that what I just did? Prove what? If I called upon the scientific method it wasn't on purpose. I just did the same thing you did with math. If it works for math it should work for God. If it doesn't work for God, it doesn't work for math neither.
I thought I could try to demonstrate using the scientific method by following your demonstration where you used the scientific method. What is the difference between our 2 examples?
Quote
Yes you were. See above.
Still not saying it. See above. I still don't think that Math or God can be demonstrated using the scientific method.
Quote
Don't you have faith in your concept of "God" to be able to perform such a tiny miracle?
Miracles are not provoked that easily.
Quote
My initial question:
Quote
Can your definition of "God" interact with the environment? Can He manipulate physical objects?
Your response:
Quote
He can, but won't. He will use me instead.
My follow up question:
Quote
Are you privy to how your concept of God operates at all times? Has your concept of God specifically told you that he will operate through you and you alone?

It's a yes or no question. I though you loved these types of questions?
I do love them! Nevertheless I have to understand the question before answering them :s
As I understand it, my answer is No, God won't operate through me and me alone. He can operate through anyone willing to let him operate through them.

Quote
But you had previously stated that, and I quote, "He can, but won't" in regards to interacting with objects (or entities) or the environment:
I still think that. I said something about miracles too, right?

He can, but won't. He will use me instead.
This immaterial thing can either
a. Interact with the material world - like you say your god can
OR
b. Cannot interact with the material world.
I'm incline to say b) But there is this "God made it all" thing. So, he wrote the code of everything and hit run.
[/b]

Quote
Here, you have just stated that he directly interacted with Mary ("God worked through her ").
Yes. Miraculously.
Quote
So, obviously he both can and will interact with the material world when the mood suits him.
Not when the mood suits him. Only on rare occasions.
"28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind""[1]
 1. 156 : http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm#156
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 05:21:06 PM
Everything have a beginning but one. This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.

This is just an assertion (a "because I say so"), and I already rebutted it in my first post to you in this OP. Why have you ignored it? If all you're going to do is merely ASSERT crap without evidence why bother debating here?
Btw, you seem to be arbitrarily excluding other possibilities - including that matter/energy (in some form) may have always existed. So merely asserting a "God" thing does nothing. It's just another one of your CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
I don't understand. What is the assertion? "everything has a beginning but one"?
I don't see any rebutting. Just phrases without anything to support them.
I don't exclude that matter/energy has always existed.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 05:30:34 PM
In order for something to be a "being" it must have attributes (positive identifiable characteristics)
Why? Where does this apparently firm rule comes from?Could you support that claim? Examples (preferably ones that did not involve our 5 senses)?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 28, 2014, 05:37:06 PM
Lukvance, you are now just making crap up. (Well, maybe not now.)

God won't answer prayers on behalf of other people.  So god will not respond to prayers for a sick baby to get well, or to keep a soldier safe in a war zone, or for a teenager to get off drugs, or for a dictator to stop torturing people, or a friend to treat their spouse more kindly. Check. If any of those things do happen, it has nothing to do with god. Double check.

God will answer self-interested prayers, however. Like, please god, keep me from stubbing my toe, or please god, heal my cancer. But only if he feels like it, so you can never tell if it is really god or not. And don't go subjecting god to the scientific method, either, counting the hits and misses. God don't play dat.

God will sometimes do miracles, if he is in the mood, but not necessarily in response to prayer, even self-interested prayer. He might even do a random miracle where nobody has prayed at all. He just rolls that way. Sometimes.


Where are these "specific rules for correct prayer" written out for all to see? God seems more strict, and more erratic, than the TSA.  &)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 05:47:16 PM
Everything have a beginning but one.
Special pleading
Quote
This one is called God and is the beginning of everything he must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.
Circular reasoning
Lukvance:
Hatter has replied to your Original Post at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg617316.html#msg617316
You simply have to accept that Anselm did not do a good job. There is no point trying to use his argument or anyone else's to show there is a god (anyone's god or a god of any sort) other than in your mind.
The mind is where god's live. First we have minds, then we have gods. Gods are the ignorant person's way of explaining why things happen. Gods are the things that punish bad people when we cannot punish them. Gods are the things that look after the poor and stupid on this earth by promising them a life in heaven.
yeah... those mean something to you. Not to me. I don't have the slightest Idea of what you are talking about when you say "Special pleading" or "Circular reasoning" I looked up the definition of these terms and don't see how they apply here.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 06:12:44 PM
I agree with Graybeard. Luk's sole reliance on Anselm's ontological argument is a clear example of authoritarianism.
Luk,
It's time to get back to your attempt to justify how philosophical conjecture is all that is needed to transform a mental construct ("God") in to "a separate entity separate from human brains".
Here is a rephrased version of Anselm's ontological argument that demonstrates it's faulty logic:
From http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html)
I don't see how this is like what I'm saying. He is using proof that I am not. (even if he is using some that I am)
Quote
You cannot even get past the first step to be able to even use Anselm's ontological argument: provide evidence that your personal concept of "God" in your mind is the correct "definition" to be used in said argument in the first place, as there are as many personal concepts (definitions) of "God" as there are people whether or not they actually believe said "God" exists. Anyone who believes their personal concept of "God" is "a being than which none greater can be imagined" can insert said deity in to the equation and claim "proof" that it is "a separate entity separate from human brains".
My proofs works for any kind of God you wish to conjure, as long as there is only one God (no multiple deity sh**)

Quote
Furthermore, you have stated:
Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings.

Since you put such high stock in "definitions"....
[...]
Nowhere in these definitions suggests that conjecture (philosophical or otherwise) and opinion (personal or otherwise) equals evidence (immaterial beings or otherwise).
I do agree with you...but you cut right before the good part. Immaterial beings, you can't cut my phrase like that and conclude something so much out of context.

Quote
Oh, and in regards to this being applicable "when you talk about immaterial beings"? That caveat was of your own devising and thus irrelevant without evidence to support your claim.
  Caveat? Irrelevant? Easy to say....way harder to prove.

Quote
In conclusion, you have purposefully and willingly supported an argument that is immune to any sort of independent testing and verification of evidence because, as both I and others have claimed, you have no actual evidence to present outside of philosophical conjecture and personal opinion. Period.
in conclusion you are wrong. You imagining and cutting stuff as it would please you best. This is no way to respect someone. I gave you things to think about...philosophical proof of the existence of God outside of your mind. You just spurred "NO! because someone else said NO already" even if that someone and me are not talking about the same thing.
We are already on a good path with our other comments. Let's stay on that one. I feel like this reply is just out of the way coming from you.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 06:16:14 PM
If anyone can imagine a god greater than Lukvance's god, then the greater-than-Lukvance's-god god has to exist. And it just stomped the sh!t out of Lukvance's god.
Oh well, so much for that......puny god.  &)
I you can imagine a god greater than mine you'll face an impossibility. Please tell me how your god could be greater than mine. For now my god has the following definition.
God : the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 06:19:07 PM
the analogy just isn't work and you should give it up. Love and maths are things that happen in our brain - electrical and chemical things. The atheists argue that your god is like that - something else that is part of the workings of the brain but has no independent reality. Apart from medieval philosophy you have not shown us a single reason to suspect that your god exists at all apart from in your brain.
If you really have no evidence for the existence of your god then, clearly, you should be asking yourself why you are not a atheist. Aside from that, atheists are not going to be swayed by arguments that lack evidence.
Math and love are what you guys talk about when I ask about immaterial things that exist outside your mind.
If you think that they doesn't exist your mind, maybe you have a better example? I'm listening closely.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 06:19:55 PM
Yes, you could say this. And it would be another false analogy fallacy since you have not shown that "math" or "numbers" exist outside the human brain.
It is not mine to show.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 06:21:16 PM
Yet when pressed on this point, he jumps right back into mental concepts again. Odd, isn't it? That should tell us something significant about his position.
Yes please tell me more how I am the one jumping, not you guys... quotes please :)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Emily on May 28, 2014, 06:31:43 PM
I you can imagine a god greater than mine you'll face an impossibility. Please tell me how your god could be greater than mine. For now my god has the following definition.
God : the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

This is also the definition of my god, and everyone else's god also. What makes your so much more powerful than the rest? For example: my god, would do so much more awesome shit than your god, for example, heal amputees. But to be honest, my god doesn't exist and neither does yours.

My god beat up your god. So there.  :P
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 06:34:12 PM
His argument for god, if you can call it that, is that:
1) lots of other people think there is a god;
2) he is happier if he thinks there is a god;
3) other people told him they also think there is a god; and
4) he doesn't stub his toes if he thinks there is a god.
Plus 5) gravity, math and love are sort of invisible, like god.
Oh yeah, there is also the part about him picking the Catholic version because they allow him to eat bacon. Note to Lukvance: atheists also allow you to eat bacon.[pornographic reference to other things atheists would allow him to eat removed in deference to younger or more sensitive viewers.]
Did I cover the salient points of the past couple hundred posts?
Not at all. These are my answer to questions people asked me. My arguments are quite different. For the existence of God I proved that God is as real as Love. And for the existence of God outside your brain...well you can read the first post of this thread. I think it is clear. If there are parts that you don't understand or disagree with. Just ask me more question/precision about it, i might be able to help you understand it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 06:43:49 PM
God won't answer prayers on behalf of other people.
You forgot a tremendously important part. GOD WONT FORCE HIS WILL UNTO OTHERS and certainly not mine (or yours). All what you say afterward is your twisted interpretation of that fact.

Quote
Where are these "specific rules for correct prayer" written out for all to see? God seems more strict, and more erratic, than the TSA.
Here : This might help you on your quest. (http://www.beginningcatholic.com/how-to-pray.html)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on May 28, 2014, 07:47:48 PM
I'm listening closely.

I think we've identified the problem!

lukvance, this is a text based forum - you need to READ closely, not listen. Try reading closely and you should finally understand what everyone has been saying to you. I bet your comprehension improves dramatically once you start READING instead of listening to the posts.

If we had recognized your reading/listening confusion sooner, we could have wrapped up all these rambling threads weeks ago.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 08:43:32 PM
Oh! I just read a new proof. I didn't have time to go through it yet but it might be interesting.
If the resurrection of Christ can be shown as a real event in history, then the existence of God is demanded as an explanation for the resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is and can be shown as a fact of history. Therefore, God exists.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Emily on May 28, 2014, 08:49:33 PM
Oh! I just read a new proof. I didn't have time to go through it yet but it might be interesting.
If the resurrection of Christ can be shown as a real event in history, then the existence of God is demanded as an explanation for the resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is and can be shown as a fact of history. Therefore, God exists.

The bold is the key word. Can it be shown as a real event in history? If not, then it's not proof that God exists.

Based on your own logic there is proof that a scary clown exists in Derry, Maine because Stephen King wrote about said clown in a book called It. It does exist in the book. But until it can be proven to actually exist in reality then it's safe to conclude it's probably fictional.

See how that circular reasoning works?!?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 28, 2014, 09:25:52 PM
Lukvance, I read your article on prayer.

Basically, it is a page of nice-sounding words, psychobabble, contradictions and double think. Firstly, you have to already believe in a god, because god won't pay any attention to you otherwise. Secondly, you have to think that everything that happens is already up to god, because god will not pay any attention to you anyway. Thirdly, you have to realize that prayer is not communicating with god, because god does not listen to human prayers and then change the world to suit our needs. God has better things to do, like imposing his will on everyone. (More about that later.)

Which makes prayer as useful (or as useless) as meditation, listening to music, getting high, having sex, watching a movie, going for a run, playing a video game or anything else that people do to forget their problems for a while. Prayer just makes us humans more able to accept the world that god has made. Apparently, the job of human beings is to adjust our minds to accept the world as it is, and make our peace with that. How very Buddhist. How very Hindu. How Islamic.

Because prayer has absolutely no measurable effect on the well-being of people-- prayer does not do anything. Prayers to god will not keep the tsunami from sweeping away your family. Prayers to god will not keep the tsunami from sweeping away your neighbor's family. Prayers to god will not heal anybody of anything, unless the prayer happens to randomly coincide with one of god's capricious miracles.

For a lot of people, even those who want to believe in god, prayer is probably less effective than just sitting quietly and daydreaming for a few minutes. Like someone on this board suggested, there are probably a number of people bowing their heads in church and not feeling anything happening at all, and thinking they are the only ones. But they could be the majority!

Seriously, if prayers will not make god do something people want (and I agree that prayers have no effect on god's behavior) I am not sure what prayers to god are supposed to accomplish. Maybe praying is just to convince people that they are doing something religious when they are not in church.  :-\

BTW, I did not see anything on the page about how god will not impose his will on anyone. Since god made the universe and is in control of it all, everything bad or good that happens in the universe is god imposing his will on you. That makes prayer even more a moot point, right? Devoutly believing people plead and beg in prayer for god to save their dying children, and yet the children die anyway. Meanwhile god stands there not imposing his will, except that he is imposing it, by creating the poverty, disease, drought and famine in the first place.

Doesn't he impose his will on people all over the world, unbeliever and believer alike, all the time?
 
God sent that hurricane, wildfire, tsunami or landslide to destroy your town, so, he imposed his will on you. Most people whose homes got destroyed did not want it to happen, but god did it anyway. Most women who have miscarriages late in pregnancy did not want that to happen, but god killed their babies anyway. Most people who lose their jobs did not want it to happen, but there is god yanking their chains.

It was god who had you select that winning lotto ticket or get that promotion at work, or have that successful childbirth. So, clearly, he imposed his will on you. Certainly, there have to be a few people who did not want to win the lottery, or get a promotion or have a baby. But there is god, sticking his big honker in people's business again.

Obviously, I don't think that there is a god in charge of the universe. But for people who do, yeah, he is definitely imposing his will.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Astreja on May 28, 2014, 11:14:07 PM
If the resurrection of Christ can be shown as a real event in history, then the existence of God is demanded as an explanation for the resurrection.
No, a god is not demanded.  I can think of alternate explanations, such as Jesus not quite dying and being taken off the cross alive.

Quote
The resurrection of Christ is and can be shown as a fact of history. Therefore, God exists.
The evidence for a historical Jesus is amazingly weak, especially in light of all the miracles documented in the Gospels -- No one living in Jerusalem at the time seems to have noticed and written about it, including the many Romans stationed there at the time, and it took literally decades for the stories to start popping up in the early Christian community.

Furthermore, it's rather common (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_to_the_underworld) for characters in religious stories to come back from the dead:  Inanna, Persephone, Orpheus, Osiris, Dionysus ... 'eck, even a few members of My own family make the list.

(Gone to the Abyss for a cup of tea with Takhisis, BRB.  ;))
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 28, 2014, 11:46:33 PM
Based on your own logic there is proof that a scary clown exists in Derry, Maine because Stephen King wrote about said clown in a book called It. It does exist in the book. But until it can be proven to actually exist in reality then it's safe to conclude it's probably fictional.
See how that circular reasoning works?!?
Did the clown resurrected? It is the "resurrected" part that make God exist in that proof.
Did the clown killed someone? If so, based on my logic (I am trying to explain my logic to you here, using your example since you seem to have not understand it) If we find someone murdered exactly the same way the clown depicted in the book did and no one else could murder this person exactly that way. Then yes, the clown exist.
See how logic works?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 29, 2014, 12:20:38 AM
This is a long, overdue, one
Lukvance, I read your article on prayer.
Great!
Quote
Basically, it is a page of nice-sounding words, psychobabble, contradictions and double think. Firstly, you have to already believe in a god, because god won't pay any attention to you otherwise.
That's not true. Proof?
Quote
Secondly, you have to think that everything that happens is already up to god, because god will not pay any attention to you anyway.
That's not true either. Proof?
Quote
Thirdly, you have to realize that prayer is not communicating with god, because god does not listen to human prayers and then change the world to suit our needs.
That's certainly not true either. Proof?
Quote
Which makes prayer as useful (or as useless) as meditation, listening to music, getting high, having sex, watching a movie, going for a run, playing a video game or anything else that people do to forget their problems for a while.
No. Prayer is way more useful than all of that combined! You are concluding on bases that are not ye been proved.

Quote
Prayer just makes us humans more able to accept the world that god has made. Apparently, the job of human beings is to adjust our minds to accept the world as it is, and make our peace with that. How very Buddhist. How very Hindu. How Islamic.
This is just you spitting words without backing them with proof.

Quote
Because prayer has absolutely no measurable effect on the well-being of people-- prayer does not do anything. Prayers to god will not keep the tsunami from sweeping away your family. Prayers to god will not keep the tsunami from sweeping away your neighbor's family. Prayers to god will not heal anybody of anything, unless the prayer happens to randomly coincide with one of god's capricious miracles.
Again this is just you spitting words without backing them with proof. You seem to do that a lot.

Quote
For a lot of people,
Because you know them all?
Quote
even those who want to believe in god, prayer is probably less effective than just sitting quietly and daydreaming for a few minutes. Like someone on this board suggested, there are probably a number of people bowing their heads in church and not feeling anything happening at all, and thinking they are the only ones. But they could be the majority!
Or they could not exist at all. Speculation?

Quote
Seriously, if prayers will not make god do something people want (and I agree that prayers have no effect on god's behavior) I am not sure what prayers to god are supposed to accomplish. Maybe praying is just to convince people that they are doing something religious when they are not in church.  :-\
Maybe you are wrong and prayer have effect on the world around you.

Quote
Since god made the universe and is in control of it all, everything bad or good that happens in the universe is god imposing his will on you.
No it is not. Again one of your many conclusions without proof.

Quote
That makes prayer even more a moot point, right?
That would if you were right. But you are not.

Quote
Devoutly believing people plead and beg in prayer for god to save their dying children, and yet the children die anyway.
Prove it, back it up with numbers. You might be surprised by the numbers.

Quote
Meanwhile god stands there not imposing his will, except that he is imposing it, by creating the poverty, disease, drought and famine in the first place.
God only allowed those to exist because he does not want to impose his will. Poverty, disease, drought and famine are consequences of sin. Then again, you should prove that God created poverty before using it as an argument.

Quote
Doesn't he impose his will on people all over the world, unbeliever and believer alike, all the time?
No. I love those yes or no questions! :)
 
Quote
God sent that hurricane, wildfire, tsunami or landslide to destroy your town, so, he imposed his will on you.
Prove that it was God who sent it and maybe you could use it as an argument.

Quote
It was god who had you select that winning lotto ticket or get that promotion at work, or have that successful childbirth. So, clearly, he imposed his will on you.
Of course not! They asked him! It was their will to win the lotto ticket or get a promotion or have a successful childbirth.

Quote
Certainly, there have to be a few people who did not want to win the lottery, or get a promotion or have a baby. But there is god, sticking his big honker in people's business again.
They did not want it? They did not get it.

Quote
Obviously, I don't think that there is a god in charge of the universe. But for people who do, yeah, he is definitely imposing his will.
Let people who do believe in God make their own conclusion, do not impose to them the twisted type of conclusion that you parade here.

Usually I let go of all those claims you bring up and don't comment on them. But they are starting to steer the conversation away from the real question people have. You give your own answers to question that you ask yourself and pose them as truth. You know that refuting all of them like I just did, take a lot of time and you count on that to let your twisted ideas in the mind of others.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 29, 2014, 12:27:00 AM
No, a god is not demanded.  I can think of alternate explanations, such as Jesus not quite dying and being taken off the cross alive.
Then it will not show as a resurrection in the history books. It would show as a guy being taken off the cross alive and hidden for 3 days and whatever alternate explanations that you can "think of". Historians are scientists too, many people forget that. You telling them "hey I have an alternate explanation" is like you telling Einstein "hey I have an alternate explanation!"

Quote
The evidence for a historical Jesus is amazingly weak, especially in light of all the miracles documented in the Gospels -- No one living in Jerusalem at the time seems to have noticed and written about it, including the many Romans stationed there at the time, and it took literally decades for the stories to start popping up in the early Christian community.
"amazingly weak"...are you an historian? Did you study historical Jesus?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Astreja on May 29, 2014, 12:53:39 AM
No, a god is not demanded.  I can think of alternate explanations, such as Jesus not quite dying and being taken off the cross alive.

Then it will not show as a resurrection in the history books. It would show as a guy being taken off the cross alive and hidden for 3 days and whatever alternate explanations that you can "think of".
I doubt that very much.  The history books would record the apparent death of Jesus, not a half-dead man being taken away, for one simple reason:

The Romans didn't generally allow bodies to be taken off the crosses, let alone people who were still alive.

For that reason alone, the disciples of Jesus would have pretended he was dead for the benefit of the crowd and the soldiers guarding the site.  Historians aren't generally omniscient, and would have reported what they thought they saw.

However, the whole business about the body of Jesus being taken off the cross and permitted private burial goes completely against standard Roman operating procedure at the time.  In general, rotting bodies hung from the crosses until even the crows and carrion hounds had given up on them, whereupon what was left was thrown into a pit along with other bodies.  The nails were reused in another execution, as iron was a valuable commodity, and if the cross was still serviceable it too was reused.

I am 99.999...% convinced of the following:
Quote
"amazingly weak"...are you an historian? Did you study historical Jesus?
*sigh*  Let's just say that I know a few things about history and know how to winnow wheat from chaff in several languages.  Kindly show Me primary documents, preferably written before 40 CE, that describe events similar to those in the Gospels.  I will accept writings from Jewish scholars, from Roman military personnel, or from people of other nations (e.g. Greece, Persia, Egypt) who actually saw someone named Jesus involved in events described in the Gospels.  Absolutely no hearsay accounts, and nothing from the Gospel authors or early Christians either.  I want to see a replica of an actual document (or sizable fragment thereof), written no more than a decade after the events in question.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 29, 2014, 01:41:16 AM
Cue special pleading interlude from Lukvance.

I summarized his prayer article and he denies that is what it said. He also thinks that hurricanes and drought are caused by sin. Like the Katrina flood was caused by the sinful gays in New Orleans.....

Face it, Lukvance your god is either evil and causes babies to die of starvation, or he is useless and can't do anything about babies dying of starvation. Or is it the free will of the baby to starve and die -- of course god cannot violate that?

I have sat and comforted Catholic women weeping and praying to god to save their dying babies. And the babies died. So don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 29, 2014, 03:51:53 AM
1. I am still puzzled about this prayer thing. Luk seems to suggest that praying for other people won't have any effect. yet why, then, do ministers in church services have intercessions when prayers are said for sick people and people with problems. Why would anyone bother doing that if they didn't think god would do something?

2. I am happy to talk about the historical Jesus and the accounts of his death if you want to, Luk. Would you like to do do here or in a new thread just for that?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Mrjason on May 29, 2014, 10:45:24 AM
2. I am happy to talk about the historical Jesus and the accounts of his death if you want to, Luk. Would you like to do do here or in a new thread just for that?

And if it was actually jesus that was crucified

This dude - Daniel Unterbrink -  recons judas was the inspiration for the jesus crucifixion story[1] Quite a good read I think there may be something to it...

The abstract from amazon:

Quote
In his history of the Jewish nation, Josephus wrote only of the death of Jesus, not mentioning one detail of his life. In contrast, the life of Judas the Galilean was chronicled from his temple cleansing to his grandson's suicide at Masada. Yet, Josephus did not tell us how Judas died. Is it possible that Judas and Jesus are the same person? Just a few of the similarities are listed below.

Both Judas and Jesus cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem.

Like Jesus, Judas was anointed King or Messiah by his followers in Galilee.

The organizations of the teachers were identical. The second-in-command to Jesus was nicknamed Cephas. Josephus called Judas' second, Sadduc.

Barabbas was released in the trial of Jesus during the reign of Pilate. Judas was arrested by Herod the Great and later released to the Jewish crowd.

Jesus was interrogated by Annas and later crucified because of his stand against Roman taxation. Judas led the tax revolt against Roman taxation in 6 AD. Annas became High Priest in 7 AD.
 1. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Judas-Galilean-flesh-blood-Jesus/dp/0595321976 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Judas-Galilean-flesh-blood-Jesus/dp/0595321976)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 29, 2014, 10:57:18 AM
Luk, I am going to start with this comment before getting back to the discussion at hand:

We are already on a good path with our other comments. Let's stay on that one. I feel like this reply is just out of the way coming from you.

I will freely admit that my patience with you has been wearing exceeding thin lately. For the sake of civility, I will try and keep it in check.

From post #113

You had asked me to refute your use of Anselm's ontological argument. I provided you with an example and an explanation of how the logic he used to come to his conclusion was flawed. You responded with:

Quote
I don't see how this is like what I'm saying. He is using proof that I am not. (even if he is using some that I am)

He is using the same, exact argument as you are. I believe he has clearly shown through his example (only substituting in God 1 and God 2 to make it easier to follow). So what "proof" are you referring to? Anselm's argument is flawed. That was his sole purpose of his explanation.

Even if the argument was sound (which was just shown to be not the case), as I and other have repeatedly stated, it serves the same purpose no matter what concept of "God" you plug in to the equation. A Muslim can insert "Allah" (which to their faith is also defined as "the greatest possible being") and come to the same, exact conclusion: an entity that exists separate from the human brain.

This now leaves those such as yourself who rely upon the ontological argument with a paradox. You now have two equally valid candidates for the title of "the greatest possible being that exists separate from the human brain" (the actual number is as large as the number of multiple differing, individual definitions as to whom said individuals believe is their own candidate for "the greatest possible being").

Since it is a logical impossibility to have more than one "greatest possible being: an entity separate from the human brain", you are then presented with two options:

1) One, and only one personal definition of "God" is correct, which then leads to the seemingly insurmountable problem of proving which one it is, since each and every individual is using Anselm's ontological argument to prove their claim. If you continue to insist that this argument is valid, then we insist you prove that your personal definition of "God" is valid over everyone else's. This is now your task. Start with Allah and go from there.

or

2) All personal definitions of "God" are incorrect, whether it be due to said "Gods" being nothing more than imaginary constructs created by the human mind with no actual basis in reality, or this "God"... if such an entity actually exists... has not been discovered yet. This is the option I adhere to.

Next point (also from post #113):

Quote
I do agree with you...but you cut right before the good part. Immaterial beings, you can't cut my phrase like that and conclude something so much out of context.

I provided my reason my follow up response. In retrospect, out of politeness I should have given you the opportunity to defend this statement of yours:

Quote
Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings

According to who? Where is this stated? I must strongly insist on your providing a source to back up this claim, otherwise it will be continued to be ignored as being nothing more than personal opinion with my rebuttal continuing to stand as is:

"Nowhere in these definitions suggests that conjecture (philosophical or otherwise) and opinion (personal or otherwise) equals evidence (immaterial beings or otherwise)."

Next point:

On your statement that "God" will only answer prayers directed at oneself due to his not wishing to violate another individual's free will:

From post #120
Quote
GOD WONT FORCE HIS WILL UNTO OTHERS

You then provided a link. I have read it. Nowhere does it state that "God" will not answer prayers that are directed at others. In fact, it gives an example of the exact opposite:

Quote
With even the smallest initial faith, you'll find it easy to turn to God and ask him for help. A wonderful prayer here is to use the words of the sick child's father in the Gospel of Mark:

From Mark 9:14-29
14 When they came to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd around them and the teachers of the law arguing with them. 15 As soon as all the people saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with wonder and ran to greet him.

16 “What are you arguing with them about?” he asked.

17 A man in the crowd answered, “Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. 18 Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not.”

19 “You unbelieving generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.”

20 So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.

21 Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has he been like this?”

“From childhood,” he answered. 22 “It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.”

23 “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for one who believes.”

24 Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”

25 When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the impure spirit. “You deaf and mute spirit,” he said, “I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.”

26 The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, “He’s dead.” 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up.

28 After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”

29 He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer".

Now, I am going to guess that your initial response will be that the father was actually praying for himself "help me overcome my unbelief".

However, two "facts" remain. The first is that the father was pleading on his son's behalf. The second is that the boy did not pray for Jesus to help him. Your savior, by your own statements, violated the boy's free will.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 29, 2014, 12:03:39 PM
1. I am still puzzled about this prayer thing. Luk seems to suggest that praying for other people won't have any effect. yet why, then, do ministers in church services have intercessions when prayers are said for sick people and people with problems. Why would anyone bother doing that if they didn't think god would do something?
If you are asking "does praying have an effect"? The answer is Yes.(yes or no question yay!) It will have an effect. Maybe not the effect you think it would have.
It is because prayer is a good thing for you and for the others. It's like the chip you receive after x days in AA meetings. It doesn't stop you physically to stop drinking. It is a reminder that we are lucky to have what we have. By praying we are making ourselves more aware of the ones who needs our help.
I was in bed one day, sick. Once I knew there was a group of people praying for me, I felt better. It is a good feeling to not be forgotten in our time of suffering.

Quote
2. I am happy to talk about the historical Jesus and the accounts of his death if you want to, Luk. Would you like to do do here or in a new thread just for that?
Not here, thank you. However, I'm not sure I have enough information about it. I never encountered an historian who's specialty was the history of Jesus. But I'm ready to look it up on the internet. I'm sure there is plenty info about it there :)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 29, 2014, 12:55:39 PM
I will freely admit that my patience with you has been wearing exceeding thin lately. For the sake of civility, I will try and keep it in check.
This makes me really happy. Reading the rest of your comment I feel like we are on track again. Thank you.

Quote
He [Anselm] is using the same, exact argument as you are. I believe he has clearly shown through his example (only substituting in God 1 and God 2 to make it easier to follow). So what "proof" are you referring to? Anselm's argument is flawed. That was his sole purpose of his explanation.
Just to make sure we are talking about the following : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains."
I don't see how god1 and god2 comes in context. He defined god 1 as what we are trying to prove and used it in the proof. I don't use what I am trying to prove the existence of in my proof.

Quote
Even if the argument was sound (which was just shown to be not the case), as I and other have repeatedly stated, it serves the same purpose no matter what concept of "God" you plug in to the equation. A Muslim can insert "Allah" (which to their faith is also defined as "the greatest possible being") and come to the same, exact conclusion: an entity that exists separate from the human brain.
Yes! And he would be almost right. I can think of a being greater than his Allah. If the being I think of is also named Allah by this person then we will agree that Allah and God are just 2 names for the same being that exist.

Quote
1) One, and only one personal definition of "God" is correct, which then leads to the seemingly insurmountable problem of proving which one it is, since each and every individual is using Anselm's ontological argument to prove their claim. If you continue to insist that this argument is valid, then we insist you prove that your personal definition of "God" is valid over everyone else's. This is now your task. Start with Allah and go from there.
Allah, as I understand, physically punish you when you sin. (He is responsible to making you fall down the stairs) God is all loving and won't ever do that to you. My god is greater than Allah.

Quote
Quote
Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings

According to who? Where is this stated?
According to me and examples found around the globe. There are no other evidence of immaterial beings than philosophical evidence or testimony (personal opinion) If you can find one case where some different kind of evidence is reported I am ready to change my statement.


Quote
Nowhere does it state that "God" will not answer prayers that are directed at others. In fact, it gives an example of the exact opposite:

Quote
With even the smallest initial faith, you'll find it easy to turn to God and ask him for help. A wonderful prayer here is to use the words of the sick child's father in the Gospel of Mark:

From Mark 9:14-29
14 When they came to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd around them and the teachers of the law arguing with them. 15 As soon as all the people saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with wonder and ran to greet him.
[...]
29 He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer".
Now, I am going to guess that your initial response will be that the father was actually praying for himself "help me overcome my unbelief".
Yes that was his prayer. But most importantly this was an exorcism it's a very special case were the devil take away the will from the boy.

Quote
However, two "facts" remain. The first is that the father was pleading on his son's behalf. The second is that the boy did not pray for Jesus to help him. Your savior, by your own statements, violated the boy's free will.
Not quite. We don't know if the boy prayed for Jesus or not.
There are cases of exorcism where even after the demon is expelled from the body, he comes back because the person does not want it out.

Let's say I pray to get better. And my mother next to me pray for me to get better. I get better. Who's prayer do you think was answered?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 29, 2014, 01:29:23 PM
1. I am still puzzled about this prayer thing. Luk seems to suggest that praying for other people won't have any effect. yet why, then, do ministers in church services have intercessions when prayers are said for sick people and people with problems. Why would anyone bother doing that if they didn't think god would do something?
If you are asking "does praying have an effect"? The answer is Yes.(yes or no question yay!) It will have an effect. Maybe not the effect you think it would have.
It is because prayer is a good thing for you and for the others. It's like the chip you receive after x days in AA meetings. It doesn't stop you physically to stop drinking. It is a reminder that we are lucky to have what we have. By praying we are making ourselves more aware of the ones who needs our help.
I was in bed one day, sick. Once I knew there was a group of people praying for me, I felt better. It is a good feeling to not be forgotten in our time of suffering.

Well I'm glad you like straight questions but I would like some clarification here. Are you saying that 

a. the benefits of prayer are for the person praying (maybe concentrating on other's problems and not their own) and for the person prayed for (so they feel that they are part of a sort of family and loved)
OR
b. That the above benefits apply but that god throws in his help to to start and fix problems? If so, what does he actually do. If not, then why pray at all - why not just ring up and sick person or go and visit them and tell them how much you care?
Quote
2. I am happy to talk about the historical Jesus and the accounts of his death if you want to, Luk. Would you like to do do here or in a new thread just for that?
Not here, thank you. However, I'm not sure I have enough information about it. I never encountered an historian who's specialty was the history of Jesus. But I'm ready to look it up on the internet. I'm sure there is plenty info about it there :)
[/quote]

I'm happy to discuss that any time. Start a thread when you are ready. It's a subject that is pretty key to Christianity of course so ought to be of interest to any Christian.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 29, 2014, 02:23:02 PM
I don't see how god1 and god2 comes in context. He defined god 1 as what we are trying to prove and used it in the proof.
I don't know how to make what he was saying in his example any clearer, Luk. I really can't. Here's what we can do, however:

Anyone else care to read http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html) and give their input as to whether or not the author's argument makes sense?

Quote
I don't use what I am trying to prove the existence of in my proof.

Yes, you do I'm afraid. Here is one example from your OP:

Quote
Everything have a beginning but one

Your stance is that "one" is synonymous with "God". You then continue:

Quote
he (God)must exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains since they were not created yet.

You attempted to prove the existence of a "God" separate from human brains using "proof" that "God" always existed prior to human brains.


Quote
Yes! And he would be almost right. I can think of a being greater than his Allah. If the being I think of is also named Allah by this person then we will agree that Allah and God are just 2 names for the same being that exist.

I am stopping you right here. Your comment "he would almost be right" is your personal opinion, just as the Muslim's claim that you "would be almost right" is also nothing more than personal opinion. You are completely missing the point that anyone at anytime can "one up" you (and vice-versa) with a definition of a "God" greater than yours. You are also being intellectually dishonest to suggest that your personal definition of "God" (the Christian version) is synonymous with a Muslim's personal definition of "Allah" (the Islamic version). They are not the same being by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote
Allah, as I understand, physically punish you when you sin. (He is responsible to making you fall down the stairs) God is all loving and won't ever do that to you. My god is greater than Allah.

One: your opinion is subjective. Who are you to question the motives and means of "God" (Islamic or otherwise)?

Two: a Muslim can turn around and point to the Christian God wiping out all of humanity except for 8 people during the Noah's Flood story, whereas in the Quran the Flood punishment only applied to certain, select communities who did not follow the Scriptures. Therefore Allah is greater in this example.

The point again is you and everyone else who throws their hat in to the ring must defend your candidate for which "God" is "the greatest". You have not satisfied this requirement.

Quote
According to me and examples found around the globe. There are no other evidence of immaterial beings than philosophical evidence or testimony (personal opinion) If you can find one case where some different kind of evidence is reported I am ready to change my statement.

You have it backwards. You made the initial claim:

Quote
Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings.

I have asked you to defend it. Your response "According to me and examples found around the globe" is not an acceptable substitute for backing up your statement as fact. You are positioning yourself as a source of authority. I sincerely doubt you would have accepted such a similar response from myself or anyone else.

Quote
Yes that was his prayer. But most importantly this was an exorcism it's a very special case were the devil take away the will from the boy.

Now you are claiming there are "special cases" where violating one's free will on the behalf of another's prayer is acceptable. This is what is referred to as "shifting the goal posts".

Also, if what you are saying is the case, then Jesus would not have needed the father to relieve himself of his unbelief in the first place before interceding on the boy's behalf. Even more troubling... according to the passages quoted... is where it implies that Jesus would not have interceded had the father not prayed to be relieved of his unbelief.

Quote
Not quite. We don't know if the boy prayed for Jesus or not.

If the boy himself prayed for help, then 1) Jesus would of had no need to have the father pray to relieve himself of his unbelief first, and 2) they had brought to boy to Jesus, who... according to the story... had to ask what was wrong with the boy which can be deduced that he was not previously aware of any prayer from the boy (or the father, for that matter).

Quote
Let's say I pray to get better. And my mother next to me pray for me to get better. I get better. Who's prayer do you think was answered?

Playing Devil's Advocate and assuming prayers work, according to your stance, your prayer and your prayer alone.

But here's another hypothetical: Let's say you didn't pray to get better, and your mother next to you prayed for you to get better. If you got better, was your mother's prayer answered, or... again according to your previous statements... you must have become better through other means due to the fact that your concept of "God" would not violate your free will?

I am not a big fan of hypotheticals, Luk, so I will ask you point blank. Do you pray to get better every time you are sick? Do you then immediately get better, or is there time involved before you do? If the second is true, then you cannot definitively rule out that you got better naturally and on your own.

I get sick and get better all the time. I just had my gall bladder removed back in December. I recovered (quite quickly, too, compared to other people I know who had the same operation) without the aid of prayer.

edited "prove" to "rule out"
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 29, 2014, 02:49:52 PM
Quote
Anselm’s Ontological Argument[1]

(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
 1. from http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/

This is the argument, put into more modern English for the sake of us who find the old language hard.
Here's where it goes wrong in its logic.

1. A definition of what we want to get to starts us off. Really, we ought to arrive at that but still....

2. and 3. Here Anselm imagines god, so this god is in his brain and something imagined.

4. This is puzzling, since we have already defined this god as the greatest thing that can be imagined

5. So we decided in 2 and 3 and 4 that god was the greatest thing that can be imagined - i.e. god imagined in the brain. Without as a breath or a pause, we jump tracks. Suddenly, an idea in the brain exists outside the brain without any explanation, logic, reason. It just jumps.

It is the final stage, which Luk has been trying on us for ages that fails as there is to rhyme or reason to accept the logic of the final step.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 29, 2014, 04:21:48 PM
I don't understand how that is even considered an argument. You could plug in anything for "god" and make it magically exist-- Brahma, Shango, Thor, Durga, Batman.  Why would anyone ever use that as evidence or proof? All you have "proved" is that you can play with words.

Magical zero calorie apple pie is the dessert so delicious that nothing better can be conceived......etc. so, where is my magical apple pie?

There is nothing whose real existence has been proven. That has been Lukvance's problem from the beginning. He is so desperate to make his invisible, immaterial, non-physical, do-nothing god exist in reality that he has to re-define "real" to include the imaginary. He has to justify why this god seems to have no effect on the world by bending free will into a logical pretzel. And then he has the nerve to try to argue! &)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Nam on May 29, 2014, 04:24:13 PM
Is the pretzel salty?

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 29, 2014, 05:35:54 PM
Is the pretzel salty?

-Nam

Not as salty as you. :-*
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 29, 2014, 06:46:53 PM
Are you saying that 
a. the benefits of prayer are for the person praying (maybe concentrating on other's problems and not their own) and for the person prayed for (so they feel that they are part of a sort of family and loved)
OR
b. That the above benefits apply but that god throws in his help to to start and fix problems? If so, what does he actually do. If not, then why pray at all - why not just ring up and sick person or go and visit them and tell them how much you care?
b. Praying help more than not praying and just doing. Knowing that the group was praying for me made me feel better. If they were to visit or ring me I might have used too much energy and felt differently. Plus it is cool to have the benefit of the prayer without having the time it requires me to do it. It's like a free bonus! Of course praying won't prevent you to call or visit. In fact, prayer might encourage you to call or visit more often.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 29, 2014, 07:35:35 PM
Yes, you do I'm afraid. Here is one example from your OP:
Quote
Everything have a beginning but one
Your stance is that "one" is synonymous with "God".
No, ""one" is synonymous with "God"" is my conclusion. From this conclusion I deduce that God is outside our brain.
Quote
I am stopping you right here. Your comment "he would almost be right" is your personal opinion, just as the Muslim's claim that you "would be almost right" is also nothing more than personal opinion.

Indeed. Why stop me?
Quote
You are completely missing the point that anyone at anytime can "one up" you (and vice-versa) with a definition of a "God" greater than yours.

Err, no. Continue to one up and at one point you will get to the true greatest being. You know that you can't "one up" perfection right?
Quote
You are also being intellectually dishonest to suggest that your personal definition of "God" (the Christian version) is synonymous with a Muslim's personal definition of "Allah" (the Islamic version). They are not the same being by any stretch of the imagination.

They will be at the end of the discussion. (after all the "one ups")
Quote
One: your opinion is subjective. Who are you to question the motives and means of "God" (Islamic or otherwise)?

I am the one imagining the perfect God. A greater God than the Islamic one what else than my opinion do you want?
Quote
Two: a Muslim can turn around and point to the Christian God wiping out all of humanity except for 8 people during the Noah's Flood story, whereas in the Quran the Flood punishment only applied to certain, select communities who did not follow the Scriptures. Therefore Allah is greater in this example.

NO. I will argue with him that my God did not kill anyone. (Noah's story is not factual)
Quote
The point again is you and everyone else who throws their hat in to the ring must defend your candidate for which "God" is "the greatest". You have not satisfied this requirement.

Yes I did :)
Quote
I have asked you to defend it. Your response "According to me and examples found around the globe" is not an acceptable substitute for backing up your statement as fact. You are positioning yourself as a source of authority. I sincerely doubt you would have accepted such a similar response from myself or anyone else.
I should have start with "Do you know any other evidence of immaterial beings than philosophical evidence or testimony (personal opinion)?" Then I would've stated "Since no one seems to find/know any other evidence, could we agree that Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings?" Is that better? (the result is the same but this way I respect more your freedom)
Quote
Now you are claiming there are "special cases" where violating one's free will on the behalf of another's prayer is acceptable. This is what is referred to as "shifting the goal posts".
Read the rest of my comments I clarify why it's a special case, and that in this case God is not violating one's free will.
Quote
If the boy himself prayed for help, then 1) Jesus would of had no need to have the father pray to relieve himself of his unbelief first
Yes, he need to have the father pray. Maybe you never been to an exorcism before but what happen in those cases is that the evil spirit will try to enter whatever unfaithful body he would find. The father with his wavering faith was a target.
Quote
2) they had brought to boy to Jesus, who... according to the story... had to ask what was wrong with the boy which can be deduced that he was not previously aware of any prayer from the boy (or the father, for that matter).
Or that he needed everyone to know what exactly was going on. Remember he was a teacher. Teachers usually knows the problem and the solution and ask the students to discover them "with him".
Quote
But here's another hypothetical: Let's say you didn't pray to get better, and your mother next to you prayed for you to get better. If you got better, was your mother's prayer answered, or... again according to your previous statements... you must have become better through other means due to the fact that your concept of "God" would not violate your free will?
I must have become better through other means.
Quote
I am not a big fan of hypotheticals, Luk, so I will ask you point blank. Do you pray to get better every time you are sick? Do you then immediately get better, or is there time involved before you do? If the second is true, then you cannot definitively rule out that you got better naturally and on your own.
Yes I pray to not get sick. When I am, I pray to get better. Sometime I did immediately get better, other time I didn't. I'm a man of science so usually I pray God to help me get better instead of asking him to cure me. I believe there are a finite amount of miracle he can do in my life, so I keep them for the real deal. I did try to get better "by myself" once (pills and doctors) and quickly realize that it wasn't fun for anyone (not me not the persons around me) I kept at it for a time that seemed long then gave up and prayed. I thought "why would I suffer and make others suffer just to prove God that I don't need him"
Quote
I get sick and get better all the time. I just had my gall bladder removed back in December. I recovered (quite quickly, too, compared to other people I know who had the same operation) without the aid of prayer.

The difference I have from the testimony of my Doctor friends is that people that pray are usually more enjoyable than the others. Even if there are some who pray and are still grumpy they say.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 29, 2014, 07:39:11 PM
Here's where it goes wrong in its logic.
[...]
It is the final stage, which Luk has been trying on us for ages that fails as there is to rhyme or reason to accept the logic of the final step.
Could you do the same thing with my proof? Since I am claiming that my proof and his are not the same.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 29, 2014, 07:42:38 PM
I don't understand how that is even considered an argument. You could plug in anything for "god" and make it magically exist-- Brahma, Shango, Thor, Durga, Batman.  Why would anyone ever use that as evidence or proof? All you have "proved" is that you can play with words.

Magical zero calorie apple pie is the dessert so delicious that nothing better can be conceived......etc. so, where is my magical apple pie?

There is nothing whose real existence has been proven. That has been Lukvance's problem from the beginning. He is so desperate to make his invisible, immaterial, non-physical, do-nothing god exist in reality that he has to re-define "real" to include the imaginary. He has to justify why this god seems to have no effect on the world by bending free will into a logical pretzel. And then he has the nerve to try to argue! &)
All I read here are accusations without nothing to support them.
Try my first proof : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains." with your pie. Build from that. Then after we discuss, prove your point by pointing my mistakes instead of inventing some that are not there.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on May 29, 2014, 08:32:48 PM
All I read here are accusations without nothing to support them.
Try my first proof : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains." with your pie.
That you think this constitutes anything remotely close to almost maybe being within the same vicinity as a 'proof' is simply flabbergasting.

Quote
Build from that. Then after we discuss, prove your point by pointing my mistakes instead of inventing some that are not there.
Your mistake - just saying that something must exist in reality doesn't actually mean that it exists.  If the greatest possible Loc-Nar 5s exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater Loc-Nar 5s is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course it would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains. <---- under no circumstance do those syntactically correct sentences make manifest a Loc-Nar 5s into realityReality is under no obligation to heed to those words.

So you need to back up the claim:
Quote
Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
with more than just your incantations.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Nam on May 29, 2014, 08:56:04 PM
Hey Lukvance, how are you relevant period? You're a joke.

-Nam
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 30, 2014, 04:40:22 AM
Noah story is not factual.... how did you reach that conclusion. can i post your response on answers in genesis site and send a copy to ken hams and the executive of the creation museum....they seem to be mislead by satan perhaps or perhaps you are satan.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 30, 2014, 05:41:43 AM
I don't understand how that is even considered an argument. You could plug in anything for "god" and make it magically exist-- Brahma, Shango, Thor, Durga, Batman.  Why would anyone ever use that as evidence or proof? All you have "proved" is that you can play with words.

Magical zero calorie apple pie is the dessert so delicious that nothing better can be conceived......etc. so, where is my magical apple pie?

There is nothing whose real existence has been proven. That has been Lukvance's problem from the beginning. He is so desperate to make his invisible, immaterial, non-physical, do-nothing god exist in reality that he has to re-define "real" to include the imaginary. He has to justify why this god seems to have no effect on the world by bending free will into a logical pretzel. And then he has the nerve to try to argue! &)
All I read here are accusations without nothing to support them.
Try my first proof : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains." with your pie. Build from that. Then after we discuss, prove your point by pointing my mistakes instead of inventing some that are not there.

No, Luk, your attempt at a proof is exactly the same as Anselm's. You start from a 'god-in-the-head' and then say that a greater being would have existence as well, so it must exist. Your problem is that jump for idea to existence. You might like the logic but it is a step too far.

Probably the main fault in your and Anselm's logic is the first statement. You start by defining your god but from where do you get that definition? I presume you get it from your holy book, the bible, and from your church's teachings but the problem with the definition is that it can be used of any god a person might choose. That's why you saw us having fun with a 'my god's better than yours' gags. The fact is that there are various gods describing in holy books and some of these have become, for their followers a 'god-in-the-head' but that's as far as the evidence will go. To get any further, to show that a god exists in reality, we need direct evidence of that existing god together with a way to know if it is YHVH, Allah, Odin or whoever. Remember, all of these gods are well supported in their own literature so there's not jumping to 'oh, it has to be my god because the other are fakes' style argument.

So, a 'yes - no' question for you. Does there exist an direct evidence that shows that your god, be careful, that's YHVH, exists independently? Please give reasons and the evidence. If you answer 'no', then the discussion is over because you will have shown there is no existing god.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 30, 2014, 10:34:49 AM
Remember when I said "I am stopping you right there" in my previous post? Until you acknowledge the flaw in your logic with your sole reliance on Anselm's ontological argument as your only "proof" of your concept of "God's" existence, our conversation will not proceed past this point.

Again, point by point, here is your flaws:

Try my first proof : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality

As worded, this is a blanantly false premise if you are claiming "reality" is referring to an existence outside of the human brain (which is exactly what you are claiming). Existence in the mind does not automatically ("must") equate to existence outside of the mind.



Quote
If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality.

"And in reality" has not by any stretch of the imagination been determined as has already been shown in your premise. Your argument is stopped dead in it's track here.

Quote
Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains."

An erroneous conclusion based upon a flawed premise.

As has been repeatedly stated by multiple posters, you cannot think an entity in to existence separate from the brain it was conceptualized in, "greatest possible" or otherwise. You have provided zero evidence to prove otherwise.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on May 30, 2014, 10:41:53 AM
By that supposed "proof" you can argue anything you want into existence: the greatest chair possible, the greatest superhero ever thought of, the greatest princess in the universe, the greatest puppy ever, etc.

If all you have to do to make something exist in reality is to run it through that "proof" than we should be living in a perfect world full of the greatest, ie, best possible things. All the chairs should be the most comfortable possible, including the crappy one I am sitting in now at work. We don't live in that perfect world, most chairs are pretty crappy, and we don't live in a perfect world where that perfect, all powerful, wonderful god is in charge, either.[1]

Unless Lukvance is now going to re-define "all powerful", "perfect" and "in charge" to mean their opposite. Which he might try to do, just because.

Many Christians who post here end up saying the most absurd things, things that they cannot possibly really believe, in order to try to show that their impossible god is real and runs everything in the universe. If I was trying to prove the existence of magical invisible all powerful fairies that hold airplanes up, I would have to say absurd things, too.
 1. I can already hear Lukvance responding, "How do you know we don't live in a perfect world? Have you been to any other worlds to compare?" Remember, If I can imagine the most perfect world in my mind, it must exist in reality, right? And if it exists, than we must be in it. QED. Sort of.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 30, 2014, 11:17:24 AM
A few more things that you need to be corrected on:

Err, no. Continue to one up and at one point you will get to the true greatest being. You know that you can't "one up" perfection right?

You continuously miss the point. Every other individual will continue to claim their "God" concept is the greatest being. You are under the false (and dare I say arrogant) assumption that eventually, each and every individual will conclude that your definition of "God" must be the greatest being. You will all be locked in a stalemate stating to one another, "No, MY God is greater than yours" unless you can somehow manage to convert each and every one them to your concept of "God" (which they are at the same time attempting to do to you). Do you comprehend this now?

Quote
I am the one imagining the perfect God. A greater God than the Islamic one what else than my opinion do you want?

From the Muslim's viewpoint: "I am the one imagining the perfect God. A greater God than the Islamic Christian one". Your claim is no more or no less valid than the Muslim's (or anyone else's). Go ahead and attempt to use your ontological argument in real life against a devout Muslim and see what happens if you don't believe me.

Quote
NO. I will argue with him that my God did not kill anyone. (Noah's story is not factual)

And the Muslim would then correctly point out that not only is this speculation on your part, the fact that your Holy Book contains so many "not factual" stories would lead one to wonder if anything in the Bible can be trusted at all.

Quote
The point again is you and everyone else who throws their hat in to the ring must defend your candidate for which "God" is "the greatest". You have not satisfied this requirement.

Quote
Yes I did :)

No you did not.

Quote
I should have start with "Do you know any other evidence of immaterial beings than philosophical evidence or testimony (personal opinion)?" Then I would've stated "Since no one seems to find/know any other evidence, could we agree that Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings?"


Poltergeists. If you remember, I made this point that you never addressed back in post #59.

Nothing? You sure? Poltergeists by their definition are also immaterial, yet can manipulate objects and interact with their environment which can most definitely be tested and verified (evidence) using equipment such as EMF Meters, Full Spectrum Cams, EVP Recorders, etc.

Mind you, I do not believe in poltergeists, but then again I am not the one "defining" them in to existence.

"Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings" continues to be a fallacious argument.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wheels5894 on May 30, 2014, 11:40:53 AM
Yep, dreaming things up in the mind cannot and never will produce a real existing thing, Well, that's not quite right - people think up things in their heads and then go of to the kitchen, the workshop, the laboratory etc. and make the thing. However that is not the case here.

Maybe the Higgs Bosun is appropriate though. Peter Higgs and others worked through the maths and thought it showed there should be a bosun that gave mass to all the other fundamental particles. In the 1960s. Now, Luk, you know the end of this story - the CERN experiment detected the bosun and Nobel Prizes were awarded to Peter Higgs and others for the discovery. Let's see if the method used could be used by you, Luk

1. Work out (by whatever means) something that ought to exist

2. Devise and experiment that might detect it

3. Run the experiment and see what happens. Get others to do the same

4. Compare results with other researchers and publish in a peer-reviewed journal

There you are, Luk. That's how you get from idea to proof. Notice Higgs wasn't allowed to go from stage 1 to Nobel Prize - you can't skip the middle bit. So devise and experiment and you could even recruit people here to take part, but it must have an objective way to confirm you have found a god.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 30, 2014, 12:40:30 PM
That you think this constitutes anything remotely close to almost maybe being within the same vicinity as a 'proof' is simply flabbergasting.

Thank you for sharing your opinion?
Quote
Your mistake - just saying that something must exist in reality doesn't actually mean that it exists.  If the greatest possible Loc-Nar 5s exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater Loc-Nar 5s is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course it would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains. <---- under no circumstance do those syntactically correct sentences make manifest a Loc-Nar 5s into realityReality is under no obligation to heed to those words.

I'm sorry but I agree with the logic "Loc-Nar 5s" exist in reality. According to the definition you gave him. it's one of the many names of God. (one you just gave him)
Quote
So you need to back up the claim:
Quote from: Lukvance
"Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
with more than just your incantations.

You are wrong they are not incantations. Again, thank you for your opinion? Now, take a deep breath and back it up with proof?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 30, 2014, 12:56:58 PM
I know I might seem a little harsh in here. I apologize in advance. I'm getting tired, this is nothing against you, I feel like in this post you really wanted to help me. Sorry :(
No, Luk, your attempt at a proof is exactly the same as Anselm's. You start from a 'god-in-the-head' and then say that a greater being would have existence as well, so it must exist. Your problem is that jump for idea to existence. You might like the logic but it is a step too far.

I don't start with god in the head. Could you stop inventing words and keep to the facts? Could you think of something that does not jump from idea to existence?
Quote
Probably the main fault in your and Anselm's logic is the first statement. You start by defining your god but from where do you get that definition?

You are wrong I am not defining God in my first statement. Your invented words again.
Quote
I presume you get it from your holy book, the bible, and from your church's teachings but the problem with the definition is that it can be used of any god a person might choose. That's why you saw us having fun with a 'my god's better than yours' gags. The fact is that there are various gods describing in holy books and some of these have become, for their followers a 'god-in-the-head' but that's as far as the evidence will go.

You are having fun, great ! Have fun reading your gags. But you know that gags aren't proofs, right? Or even arguments.
Quote
To get any further, to show that a god exists in reality, we need direct evidence of that existing god together with a way to know if it is YHVH, Allah, Odin or whoever. Remember, all of these gods are well supported in their own literature so there's not jumping to 'oh, it has to be my god because the other are fakes' style argument.

Bold mine. No, you don't need direct evidence. You don't need it to know what you are feeling(love,hate...etc). You don't need it to know which God to choose.
Quote
So, a 'yes - no' question for you.
Yay!
Quote
Does there exist an direct evidence that shows that your god, be careful, that's YHVH, exists independently?
Other. I can provide you with evidence of his independent existence (cf my first post) but I don't understand what is "direct evidence" you are talking about. Do you have direct evidence that you love someone?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on May 30, 2014, 01:01:36 PM
That you think this constitutes anything remotely close to almost maybe being within the same vicinity as a 'proof' is simply flabbergasting.

Thank you for sharing your opinion?
You're welcome?

Quote
Quote
Your mistake - just saying that something must exist in reality doesn't actually mean that it exists.  If the greatest possible Loc-Nar 5s exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater Loc-Nar 5s is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course it would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains. <---- under no circumstance do those syntactically correct sentences make manifest a Loc-Nar 5s into realityReality is under no obligation to heed to those words.

I'm sorry but I agree with the logic "Loc-Nar 5s" exist in reality. According to the definition you gave him. it's one of the many names of God. (one you just gave him)
Him?  Did I say anything about a Loc-Nar 5s being an entity that is appropriately referenced with a pronoun typically reserved for sentient entities of the male persuasion?

Could you explain the logic of saying that the property of 'existence' is greater than 'non-existence'?  What, exactly, is the metric that you use to determine whether some...feature...is 'greater' or 'not greater'?  'Greater' or 'not greater' how?

Quote
Quote
So you need to back up the claim:
Quote from: Lukvance
"Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
with more than just your incantations.

You are wrong they are not incantations. Again, thank you for your opinion? Now, take a deep breath and back it up with proof?
The number of deep breaths I have to take in responding to your posts is rather high already.  My use of the word 'incantation' is something of hyperbole, but the main point is that you keep trying to assert the real existence of something based on words alone, and frankly, that sh*t ain't gonna fly.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 30, 2014, 01:12:42 PM
Again, point by point, here is your flaws:

Thank you!
Quote
Try my first proof : "If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality
As worded, this is a blanantly false premise if you are claiming "reality" is referring to an existence outside of the human brain (which is exactly what you are claiming). Existence in the mind does not automatically ("must") equate to existence outside of the mind.
I agree with you, existence in the mind does not automatically equate to existence outside of the mind. But it is a special case here. We are talking about the greatest possible being. When we talk about that being and because he is the greatest, this rule does not apply.
Quote
Quote from: Lukvance
If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality.
"And in reality" has not by any stretch of the imagination been determined as has already been shown in your premise. Your argument is stopped dead in it's track here.
I don't get that comment. Are you saying "go read my previous comment before I can start to comment on this part of your proof"?
Quote
Quote
Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains."
An erroneous conclusion based upon a flawed premise.

I don't get that comment. Are you saying "go read my first comment so I can get to this conclusion"?
There seems to be only ONE "flaw" that you underlined (and I debunked). And you make it look like there are 3. Not cool man, not cool.
Quote
As has been repeatedly stated by multiple posters, you cannot think an entity in to existence separate from the brain it was conceptualized in, "greatest possible" or otherwise. You have provided zero evidence to prove otherwise.
Why can't you? I just did!
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 30, 2014, 01:20:13 PM
By that supposed "proof" you can argue anything you want into existence: the greatest chair possible, the greatest superhero ever thought of, the greatest princess in the universe, the greatest puppy ever, etc.
Pick one! Let's see where it leads you.

Quote
If all you have to do to make something exist in reality is to run it through that "proof" than we should be living in a perfect world full of the greatest, ie, best possible things. All the chairs should be the most comfortable possible, including the crappy one I am sitting in now at work.
There can only be one greatest.
Quote
We don't live in that perfect world, most chairs are pretty crappy, and we don't live in a perfect world where that perfect, all powerful, wonderful god is in charge, either.
You are wrong. We live in a world where God exist. He even exist outside of your brain. Could we stick to the subject and try not to have to read phrases like the one you just wrote? You invent an situation (perfect world) then you say it does not exist. Waste of time.

Quote
Unless Lukvance is now going to re-define "all powerful", "perfect" and "in charge" to mean their opposite. Which he might try to do, just because.
Nope, no need for all that. It's your fantasy world you killed.

Quote
Many Christians who post here end up saying the most absurd things, things that they cannot possibly really believe, in order to try to show that their impossible god is real and runs everything in the universe. If I was trying to prove the existence of magical invisible all powerful fairies that hold airplanes up, I would have to say absurd things, too.
Good thing I am not one of those! :) Thank you for your opinion on Christians, but we really don't need it here, it's irrelevant.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on May 30, 2014, 01:29:58 PM
You are wrong. We live in a world where God exist. He even exist outside of your brain. Could we stick to the subject and try not to have to read phrases like the one you just wrote? You invent an situation (perfect world) then you say it does not exist. Waste of time.

Oh well hell, why didn't you just say so?

That settles the thread.  Lukvance says that god exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.  Must be f*cking true.  Lukvance typed those words.  Must make it f*cking true.

How could I have been so blind?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 30, 2014, 01:33:43 PM
You continuously miss the point. Every other individual will continue to claim their "God" concept is the greatest being. You are under the false (and dare I say arrogant) assumption that eventually, each and every individual will conclude that your definition of "God" must be the greatest being. You will all be locked in a stalemate stating to one another, "No, MY God is greater than yours" unless you can somehow manage to convert each and every one them to your concept of "God" (which they are at the same time attempting to do to you). Do you comprehend this now?
I am not missing the point. You have an idea which is "we won't agree" and I have one opposite which is "we will agree". I know the result of this because I already tried it with a Muslim.
Nevertheless, since neither you nor me can predict the future, let's leave it at that and try something we can control.

Quote
Quote
NO. I will argue with him that my God did not kill anyone. (Noah's story is not factual)
And the Muslim would then correctly point out that not only is this speculation on your part, the fact that your Holy Book contains so many "not factual" stories would lead one to wonder if anything in the Bible can be trusted at all.
I understand what you are trying to do here. Moving the discussion on another subject (the veracity of the bible). Even if he says that, we agree my God is greater...that's the point no?

Quote
Quote
I should have start with "Do you know any other evidence of immaterial beings than philosophical evidence or testimony (personal opinion)?" Then I would've stated "Since no one seems to find/know any other evidence, could we agree that Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings?"

Poltergeists. If you remember, I made this point that you never addressed back in post #59.

Nothing? You sure? Poltergeists by their definition are also immaterial, yet can manipulate objects and interact with their environment which can most definitely be tested and verified (evidence) using equipment such as EMF Meters, Full Spectrum Cams, EVP Recorders, etc.

Mind you, I do not believe in poltergeists, but then again I am not the one "defining" them in to existence.

"Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings" continues to be a fallacious argument.
You said you didn't accept the proofs for poltergeist. (that's what I understand from "i do not believe in poltergeists") Doesn't that mean that they are not to be considered as evidence? If they are, then I won't have trouble changing my statement. But you must believe in poltergeists first since you've see evidence of their existence. :)
I ask again : Do you know any other evidence of immaterial beings than philosophical evidence or testimony (personal opinion)?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 30, 2014, 01:46:45 PM
Yep, dreaming things up in the mind cannot and never will produce a real existing thing, Well, that's not quite right - people think up things in their heads and then go of to the kitchen, the workshop, the laboratory etc. and make the thing. However that is not the case here.
Thank you, can we stick to the subject at hand?

Quote
Maybe the Higgs Bosun is appropriate though. Peter Higgs and others worked through the maths and thought it showed there should be a bosun that gave mass to all the other fundamental particles. In the 1960s. Now, Luk, you know the end of this story - the CERN experiment detected the bosun and Nobel Prizes were awarded to Peter Higgs and others for the discovery. Let's see if the method used could be used by you, Luk
... you have to be sure.

Quote
1. Work out (by whatever means) something that ought to exist
2. Devise and experiment that might detect it
3. Run the experiment and see what happens. Get others to do the same
4. Compare results with other researchers and publish in a peer-reviewed journal
There you are, Luk. That's how you get from idea to proof. Notice Higgs wasn't allowed to go from stage 1 to Nobel Prize - you can't skip the middle bit. So devise and experiment and you could even recruit people here to take part, but it must have an objective way to confirm you have found a god.

1. Done on this thread
2. Go to the church (a good one) and pray.
3. Done it, I believe. Done it, they believe.
4. Look at that! Done![1] God exist and we have proof!
Thank you.
 1. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 30, 2014, 01:52:13 PM
Him?  Did I say anything about a Loc-Nar 5s being an entity that is appropriately referenced with a pronoun typically reserved for sentient entities of the male persuasion?
The entity. Stop trying to divert from the subject.

Quote
Could you explain the logic of saying that the property of 'existence' is greater than 'non-existence'?  What, exactly, is the metric that you use to determine whether some...feature...is 'greater' or 'not greater'?  'Greater' or 'not greater' how
My metric? Happiness. I think everyone has his own metric.

Quote
The number of deep breaths I have to take in responding to your posts is rather high already.  My use of the word 'incantation' is something of hyperbole, but the main point is that you keep trying to assert the real existence of something based on words alone, and frankly, that sh*t ain't gonna fly.
There is logic too, you'll see. :)
Ps : Do you know any other evidence of immaterial beings than philosophical evidence or testimony (personal opinion)?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 30, 2014, 02:18:46 PM
I agree with you, existence in the mind does not automatically equate to existence outside of the mind. But it is a special case here. We are talking about the greatest possible being. When we talk about that being and because he is the greatest, this rule does not apply.

This is called "special pleading".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)
Quote
Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment[1]) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception

It is also irrelevant. Whether an object or being is "greatest" in the mind does not automatically equate to existence outside of the mind. You are offering no evidence outside of Anselm's ontological argument to support your claim of "must".

Quote
I don't get that comment. Are you saying "go read my previous comment before I can start to comment on this part of your proof"

No. I am saying you cannot continue on your conclusion if the premises it is built upon are flawed.

Quote
I don't get that comment. Are you saying "go read my first comment so I can get to this conclusion"?

Not to sound harsh, but these "I don't get that comment" are beginning to appear to be more due to failure on your part to grasp what is being discused than through a fault in communication on my part.

Your conclusion is flawed due to it being built on a premise, followed by an argument that is flawed.

Quote
There seems to be only ONE "flaw" that you underlined (and I debunked).

You must certainly did not. Solely relying on Anselm's argument to defend Anselm's argument (as you have introduced no other evidence to bolster your claims) is circular reasoning.

Quote
And you make it look like there are 3. Not cool man, not cool.

There are three, and there continues to be three. You claim to have refuted my points and I claim that you have not. I would be more than happy to have it put to a vote, but I have a feeling you would feel the deck was stacked in my favor.

Quote
Why can't you? I just did!

No you did not for all the reasons I have already given.

I've stated my case, and see no further benefit of continuing this conversation.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on May 30, 2014, 02:32:05 PM
I am not missing the point. You have an idea which is "we won't agree" and I have one opposite which is "we will agree". I know the result of this because I already tried it with a Muslim.

Did the Muslim agree your "God" is greater than his? Yes or no.

Quote
Even if he says that, we agree my God is greater...that's the point no?

You are saying the Muslim agreed that your "God" is greater than his? Yes or no.

Quote
You said you didn't accept the proofs for poltergeist. (that's what I understand from "i do not believe in poltergeists") Doesn't that mean that they are not to be considered as evidence? If they are, then I won't have trouble changing my statement. But you must believe in poltergeists first since you've see evidence of their existence. :)

My beliefs are irrelevant, and I have never stated I have seen evidence of their existence, only that the means exist to verify their existence. You are guilty of using a strawman argument. Not cool, man. Not cool.

What is relevant is the definition of poltergeists as being both immaterial and capable of being proven or disproven through evidence or the lack thereof using the scientific method. This is a valid example.

If you cannot refute the above statement, then you cannot claim evidence of immaterial beings using nothing other than philosophical evidence or testimony.

Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on May 30, 2014, 03:31:35 PM
Him?  Did I say anything about a Loc-Nar 5s being an entity that is appropriately referenced with a pronoun typically reserved for sentient entities of the male persuasion?
The entity. Stop trying to divert from the subject.
I'm not diverting the subject.  I'm exposing the vast amount of baggage that you're assuming and not explicitly stating.  Your implicitly sneaking in properties of this 'greatest' thing like gender and sentience.

Quote
Quote
Could you explain the logic of saying that the property of 'existence' is greater than 'non-existence'?  What, exactly, is the metric that you use to determine whether some...feature...is 'greater' or 'not greater'?  'Greater' or 'not greater' how
My metric? Happiness. I think everyone has his own metric.
Let me guess - 'happiness' is one of them there other things that somehow exists outside of the minds of sentient entities.  And you're going to do your utmost to avoid backing that shit up to.

Quote
Quote
The number of deep breaths I have to take in responding to your posts is rather high already.  My use of the word 'incantation' is something of hyperbole, but the main point is that you keep trying to assert the real existence of something based on words alone, and frankly, that sh*t ain't gonna fly.
There is logic too, you'll see. :)
Ps : Do you know any other evidence of immaterial beings than philosophical evidence or testimony (personal opinion)?
I do not know of any other evidence of immaterial beings.  That's part of the reason that I don't believe that ghosts, boogie-men, or chicks that pay chump change for teeth are actually real.  That and because I'm a fucking adult.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 30, 2014, 06:36:35 PM
This is called "special pleading".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)
No. Is saying that a plastic chair is made of plastic, special pleading?
Here is what I say would look like :
"I agree with you, chair does not automatically equate to plastic. But it is a special case here. We are talking about a plastic chair. When we talk about that chair and because it is made of plastic, this rule does not apply."
Quote
It is also irrelevant. Whether an object or being is "greatest" in the mind does not automatically equate to existence outside of the mind.

Yes it does! That's the proof we are talking about. This comment is as if you just wrote "I's also irrelevant. Your proof is wrong because I said so". This is not an argument. It looks like one but is not.
Quote
You are offering no evidence outside of Anselm's ontological argument to support your claim of "must".
Could you stop with that Anselm thing and stick with my argument? I still don't think they are the same and it confuses me (and anyone else who's reading) more than necessary. I am not offering "Anselm's ontological argument" to support my claim of "must" OK?
Quote
Quote from: Lukvance
I don't get that comment. Are you saying "go read my previous comment before I can start to comment on this part of your proof"
No. I am saying you cannot continue on your conclusion if the premises it is built upon are flawed.

I agree with you. You must determine if the premise is flawed before telling me that I cannot continue. And we did not determine that yet.
Quote
Quote from: Lukvance
There seems to be only ONE "flaw" that you underlined (and I debunked).
You must certainly did not. Solely relying on Anselm's argument to defend Anselm's argument (as you have introduced no other evidence to bolster your claims) is circular reasoning.

Again with that "Anselm's argument" could you please stop that! It makes you look cool and knowledgeable but as much as you wish it was, it is not what I'm using/offering.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 30, 2014, 06:52:49 PM
Did the Muslim agree your "God" is greater than his? Yes or no.
Hmm Yes and No, we found a definition of God that we agreed was the greatest being. He concluded that his god wasn't the greatest being...for now (he needed time to know his god better)

Quote
Quote
You said you didn't accept the proofs for poltergeist. (that's what I understand from "i do not believe in poltergeists") Doesn't that mean that they are not to be considered as evidence? If they are, then I won't have trouble changing my statement. But you must believe in poltergeists first since you've see evidence of their existence. :)
What is relevant is the definition of poltergeists as being both immaterial and capable of being proven or disproven through evidence or the lack thereof using the scientific method. This is a valid example.
If you cannot refute the above statement, then you cannot claim evidence of immaterial beings using nothing other than philosophical evidence or testimony.
Of course I can refute your statement. We are not talking about non existence of something we are talking about proof of existence of something. You say that we can use instruments to prove the existence of poltergeist and that's a lie.
Tell me that "we can use instruments or using the scientific method to prove the existence of poltergeist" and I will change my statement.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on May 30, 2014, 07:02:27 PM
Him?  Did I say anything about a Loc-Nar 5s being an entity that is appropriately referenced with a pronoun typically reserved for sentient entities of the male persuasion?
The entity. Stop trying to divert from the subject.
I'm not diverting the subject.  I'm exposing the vast amount of baggage that you're assuming and not explicitly stating.  Your implicitly sneaking in properties of this 'greatest' thing like gender and sentience.
I did no such thing! YOU were the one "implicitly sneaking in properties of this 'greatest' thing like gender and sentience" I used the pronoun "He" because I am talking about the greatest being I know I'm not born English but "greatest being" is masculine, no? Isn't there a rule saying that all "it" are masculine?
Anyway I really don't see how the sex of the being is of such importance that you need to expose it.

Quote
Let me guess - 'happiness' is one of them there other things that somehow exists outside of the minds of sentient entities.  And you're going to do your utmost to avoid backing that shit up to.
Guess how much you want but do it on your time. Stay on the subject. (btw you guessed wrong)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on May 30, 2014, 07:03:43 PM
In luks mind luk is right and that's all the proof that matters to luk.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Astreja on May 31, 2014, 12:08:06 AM
I used the pronoun "He" because I am talking about the greatest being I know I'm not born English but "greatest being" is masculine, no? Isn't there a rule saying that all "it" are masculine?

In English, "greatest being" has no gender; neither does "it," although a gender can be associated indirectly with the word "it" if one is talking about a female kitten or a male horse.

If we're discussing a hypothetical being that may not even have a gender, "it" is fine.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 17, 2014, 12:35:18 AM
Lol only 4 pages. This is fun.
Here we were at the point where I asked someone to present me with the scientific method used for Gravity so that I could apply it to God's doing in this world.
To help us "The Scientific Method":
(http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png)

Anyone?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Anfauglir on June 17, 2014, 08:20:43 AM
Here we were at the point where I asked someone to present me with the scientific method used for Gravity so that I could apply it to God's doing in this world.

Anyone?

Maybe.  Define "gravity", and define "god", and I may take you up on it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 17, 2014, 08:36:52 AM
Do really want to entertain the troll.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Graybeard on June 17, 2014, 08:59:29 AM
I agree with you, existence in the mind does not automatically equate to existence outside of the mind. But it is a special case here. We are talking about the greatest possible being. When we talk about that being and because he is the greatest, this rule does not apply.

This is called "special pleading".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)

No. Is saying that a plastic chair is made of plastic, special pleading?
No, it would not. You are not claiming anything for the chair other than it is made of plastic, and you have defined a plastic chair as one made of plastic – it is a definition, it is not an argument. We are in agreement that plastic chairs exist and are plastic.

However, you are claiming that, unlike all other things that exist only in the mind and nowhere else, the greatest possible being, if it exists in the mind, must also exist in reality.

This is "special pleading" as you have no evidence to make an exception to the rule.

I don’t know how you missed that.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Hatter23 on June 17, 2014, 10:12:33 AM

This is "special pleading" as you have no evidence to make an exception to the rule.

I don’t know how you missed that.

Tolling or sheer stupidity...I can't think of another option.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on June 17, 2014, 10:38:17 AM
Here we were at the point where I asked someone to present me with the scientific method used for Gravity so that I could apply it to God's doing in this world.
To help us "The Scientific Method":

Are you claiming that the scientific method is a valid tool to use in proving the existence of your concept of "God" (as a separate entity - separate from human brains)?

Yes or no.

The reason I would like to have you clarify this for us is due to this comment you had previously made:

Beside testimony and logic there are no other evidence for the existence of something immaterial outside your brain.
I gave you testimony.
I gave you logic proof.
What more do you want? The impossible? The thing that even yourself cannot conceive?
You want me to respond to what? I don't see any question.

Your answer?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 17, 2014, 11:25:22 AM
Maybe.  Define "gravity", and define "god", and I may take you up on it.
Hmm How about those? Can you work with that?
God : An impersonal and universal spiritual presence or force; immaterial being that exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Gravity : Force exercised by two bodies onto each other;  immaterial thing that exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 17, 2014, 11:31:08 AM
However, you are claiming that, unlike all other things that exist only in the mind and nowhere else, the greatest possible being, if it exists in the mind, must also exist in reality.

This is "special pleading" as you have no evidence to make an exception to the rule.

Here is how I see you "counter argument", for a plastic chair :
"However, I am claiming that, unlike all other chairs and nothing else, the plastic chair, if it's a chair, must also be in plastic."
I don't see how this could be considered as a counter argument or special pleading.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on June 17, 2014, 11:32:22 AM
Tolling or sheer stupidity...I can't think of another option.

Simple bias
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/politics-bad-math-study_n_4060350.html

delusion
compartmentalization
mental illness/ brain damage
posting under the influence of drugs

there may be others.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 17, 2014, 11:34:23 AM
Lukvance, smiting people for insults isn't going to help the discussion either.  Jetson said insults were against the rules now; you can report them to a moderator instead of smiting the person.  And to be honest, smiting someone for behavior you don't like generally gives them an incentive to do it again.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 17, 2014, 11:36:03 AM
Here we were at the point where I asked someone to present me with the scientific method used for Gravity so that I could apply it to God's doing in this world.
To help us "The Scientific Method":
Are you claiming that the scientific method is a valid tool to use in proving the existence of your concept of "God" (as a separate entity - separate from human brains)?
Yes or no.
The reason I would like to have you clarify this for us is due to this comment you had previously made:
Beside testimony and logic there are no other evidence for the existence of something immaterial outside your brain.
I gave you testimony.
I gave you logic proof.
What more do you want? The impossible? The thing that even yourself cannot conceive?
You want me to respond to what? I don't see any question.
Your answer?
No.
I think that it would be a good exercise to do it as a scientific experiment. Plus you seem to consider it as a good tool to prove the existence of something immaterial so it would go a long way to prove my point that God is indeed real.
Nevertheless it was not the scientific experiment that convinced me that God was real.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 17, 2014, 11:38:09 AM
Lukvance, smiting people for insults isn't going to help the discussion either.  Jetson said insults were against the rules now; you can report them to a moderator instead of smiting the person.  And to be honest, smiting someone for behavior you don't like generally gives them an incentive to do it again.
Thank you. I did both :)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on June 17, 2014, 12:11:51 PM
No.
I think that it would be a good exercise to do it as a scientific experiment.

So, you think it would be a good exercise to do a scientific experiment using a hypothesis (Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains) that according to your own words a conclusion cannot be reached using the scientific method? Ok.

Quote
Plus you seem to consider it as a good tool to prove the existence of something immaterial so it would go a long way to prove my point that God is indeed real.

Really? Is that how you see this working? You appear to be operating under the false assumption that proving the existence of a specific example of "something immaterial" equates to help proving the existence of a different, specific example of "something immaterial". The validity of each and every separate hypothesis you plug in to the equation must be tested on its own merits.

i.e. Proving the existence of "ghosts" does not equate to proving the existence of "souls".

Continuing with the mention of gravity, are you claiming that "God" and "gravity" are on equal footing where the same conclusion (they exist as separate entities - separate from human brains) can be reached for both by proving the existence of one or the other?

Quote
Nevertheless it was not the scientific experiment that convinced me that God was real.

Good thing for you, then, because it cannot and has not.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Hatter23 on June 17, 2014, 01:00:57 PM

This is "special pleading" as you have no evidence to make an exception to the rule.

I don’t know how you missed that.

Tolling or sheer stupidity...I can't think of another option.

I mean "trolling" or sheer stupidity...though in this case they don't seem to be exclusive from each other.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 17, 2014, 02:11:33 PM
Continuing with the mention of gravity, are you claiming that "God" and "gravity" are on equal footing where the same conclusion (they exist as separate entities - separate from human brains) can be reached for both by proving the existence of one or the other?
No. I just want an example of a "good" scientific method so mine would be as good. I chose Gravity because of it's immaterial status.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 17, 2014, 02:13:46 PM
Could we stop postponing the proof of Gravity? It's been already 13 posts since I asked. No wonder these discussion are so long...
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Don_Quixote on June 17, 2014, 02:15:54 PM
Could we stop postponing the proof of Gravity? It's been already 13 posts since I asked. No wonder these discussion are so long...

Throw a ball from your hand to the floor. There, you just tested gravity.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on June 17, 2014, 02:21:25 PM
Continuing with the mention of gravity, are you claiming that "God" and "gravity" are on equal footing where the same conclusion (they exist as separate entities - separate from human brains) can be reached for both by proving the existence of one or the other?
No. I just want an example of a "good" scientific method so mine would be as good. I chose Gravity because of it's immaterial status.

This is what I find perplexing. Whether or not anyone here provides you with a "good scientific method" in regards to gravity should have no bearing one way or the other to you since, as you have already stated, your "immaterial being" by it's very nature/definition cannot be proven through the use of the scientific method.

You would be, in essence, using the example of gravity to build a hypothesis for "God" that cannot possibly reach it's own conclusion due to the very argument you yourself have already stated.

I wonder, though... is it your intent to show that ultimately gravity cannot be proven through the use of the scientific method?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 17, 2014, 04:05:56 PM
I wonder, though... is it your intent to show that ultimately gravity cannot be proven through the use of the scientific method?
I think I told you what was my intent already.
I just want an example of a "good" scientific method so mine would be as good. I chose Gravity because of it's immaterial status.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: SevenPatch on June 17, 2014, 06:25:56 PM
It is also irrelevant. Whether an object or being is "greatest" in the mind does not automatically equate to existence outside of the mind.

Yes it does! That's the proof we are talking about. This comment is as if you just wrote "I's also irrelevant. Your proof is wrong because I said so". This is not an argument. It looks like one but is not.

Actually it is a solid argument.  You, Lukvance, have offered no supporting evidence that an object or being must exist in reality because it exists in the mind which would be “greater”.  Your “proof” is nothing more than an empty assertion.  Just because you assert something, doesn’t mean it is true, you must demonstrate that it is true or provide examples.  In fact, if your logic were true then pretty much anything and everything we can imagine would exist in reality.

For example:

“If the greatest possible flat Earth exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality.  If it only exists in the mind, a greater flat Earth is possible – one which exists in the mind and in reality.  Of course this flat Earth would exist as separate from human brains”.

“If the greatest possible round Earth exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality.  If it only exists in the mind, a greater round Earth is possible – one which exists in the mind and in reality.  Of course this round Earth would exist as separate from human brains”.

“if the greatest possible donut Earth exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality.  If it only exists in the mind, a greater donut Earth is possible – one which exists in the mind and in reality.  Of course this donut Earth would exist as separate from human brains”.

Even if something existing in reality can be considered greater than if it only existed in the mind, there is nothing which guarantees that it actually exists in reality.  Your use of the word “must” is not accepted because you’ve not proven that it “must” exist in reality.  If you were to prove that “it must exist in reality”, then you would prove that the Earth is flat, round and donut shaped, all at the same time.

You would prove that flying horses, flying pigs, unicorns, leprechauns, Freddy Krueger, Santa Clause, The Hulk, fairies and everything imaginable exists in reality all simply because they “must” exist in reality as that would be “greater” than only existing in our minds.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Defiance on June 17, 2014, 06:36:48 PM
Why must it exist out of mind, Luk?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Graybeard on June 17, 2014, 06:48:17 PM
Here is how I see you "counter argument", for a plastic chair :
"However, I am claiming that, unlike all other chairs and nothing else, the plastic chair, if it's a chair, must also be in plastic."
I don't see how this could be considered as a counter argument or special pleading.
You really do not see, do you?

You create a rule that says that things that exist in the mind do not have to exist in reality.
You then say that there is an exception to this rule, and that exception is the GPB

Why is the GBP an exception?

In the case of the plastic chair there is no rule and therefore the plastic chair cannot be an exception to a rule that does not exist.

Your argument is not parallel to the question in the thread's title.

If I were to say,
"Every chair that was ever made has a seat." then we have a rule.

If I then say, "But this rule does not apply to the mysterious plastic chair of Rheims which does not  have a seat and that is why the world goes round." I have used "special pleading" for the chair. I have made it an exception to the rule and granted it magical powers, which is unlike all other chairs and I have not explained why this is so.

Essentially, special pleading involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

Once again: your "plastic chair" analogy has no rules, so it is not a relevant example. But your "if the GPB exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality." has rules for other imaginary beings but why this rule does not apply to the GPB is unexplained.

I hope I have helped.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 17, 2014, 08:16:23 PM
In the case of the plastic chair there is no rule and therefore the plastic chair cannot be an exception to a rule that does not exist.
There is a rule : "all chairs are not automatically made in plastic." But in the particular case of the plastic chair...etc
I hope I have helped too
But before we get back to that point could we move forward with the discussion? I was asking for a proof of Gravity in the form of scientific method.
Do you have one?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 17, 2014, 08:22:42 PM
Actually it is a solid argument.  You, Lukvance, have offered no supporting evidence that an object or being must exist in reality because it exists in the mind which would be “greater”.  Your “proof” is nothing more than an empty assertion.  Just because you assert something, doesn’t mean it is true, you must demonstrate that it is true or provide examples.  In fact, if your logic were true then pretty much anything and everything we can imagine would exist in reality.

For example:

“If the greatest possible flat Earth exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality.  If it only exists in the mind, a greater flat Earth is possible – one which exists in the mind and in reality.  Of course this flat Earth would exist as separate from human brains”.

“If the greatest possible round Earth exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality.  If it only exists in the mind, a greater round Earth is possible – one which exists in the mind and in reality.  Of course this round Earth would exist as separate from human brains”.

“if the greatest possible donut Earth exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality.  If it only exists in the mind, a greater donut Earth is possible – one which exists in the mind and in reality.  Of course this donut Earth would exist as separate from human brains”.

Even if something existing in reality can be considered greater than if it only existed in the mind, there is nothing which guarantees that it actually exists in reality.  Your use of the word “must” is not accepted because you’ve not proven that it “must” exist in reality.  If you were to prove that “it must exist in reality”, then you would prove that the Earth is flat, round and donut shaped, all at the same time.

You would prove that flying horses, flying pigs, unicorns, leprechauns, Freddy Krueger, Santa Clause, The Hulk, fairies and everything imaginable exists in reality all simply because they “must” exist in reality as that would be “greater” than only existing in our minds.
Thank you your examples made it easier to understand where DoS was coming from. I now have material to discuss.
But before we get back to that point could we move forward with the discussion? I was asking for a proof of Gravity in the form of scientific method.
Do you have one?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Defiance on June 17, 2014, 08:35:42 PM
Newton was pretty smart. Here's the Law of Newtonian Gravity.

Interesting read:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Notice how it even has a formula to be applied that works every single time.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 17, 2014, 09:25:02 PM
oh luk wants scientific method for proof of gravity, please refute these luk, this is just one small aprt of one experiment. please read every detail and refute them. luk has me on ignore so can someone re-post these, more in a follow up post:

Data Analysis
?Ultra High Resolution Science Data Extraction for the Gravity Probe B Gyro and Telescope
Richard Van Patten, Ray DiEsposti, John V. Breakwell, SPIE Proceedings Vol. 619, 23-24, January 1986.
?The Gravity Probe B 'Niobium Bird' Experiment Verifying the Data Reduction Scheme for Estimating the Relativistic Precession of Earth-Orbiting Gyroscopes
H. Uematsu, B. W. Parkinson, J. M. Lockhart, B. Muhlfelder,Spaceflight Mechanics 1993, Vol. 82, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences.
?The Stanford Relativity Mission, Niobium Bird. Verification of the Science Mission by Experimental Application of a New Nonlinear Estimation Algorithm
G. T. Haupt, G.Gutt, J. M. Lockhart, N. J. Kasdin, G. M. Keiser, B. W. Parkinson, 18th Annual AAS Guidance and Control Conference, Keystone, Colorado, February 1-5, 1995.
?An Optimal Recursive Iterative Algorithm for Discrete Nonlinear Least-Squares Estimation
G. Haupt, N. Kasdin, G. Keiser, and B. Parkinson, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, andControl Conference, August 7-10, 1995 AIAA-95-3218.
?Data Reduction, Error and Analysis and Identification of Systemic Errors in the Gravity Probe B Experiment
M. I. Heifetz. C.W. F. Everitt, G. M. Keiser, A. S. Silbergleit, Proceedings of the Eighth Marcel Grossman Meeting on General Relativity. Ed: Tsvi Piran, World Scientific, Singapore, Part A, pp 259-268, 1999.
?Data Analysis in the Gravity Probe B Relativity Experiment
M. I. Heifetz, G. M. Keiser, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information Fusion, Volume II, FUSION-99.
Back to Top

Gyroscope
?Gravity Probe B: III. The Precision Gyroscope
Y. M. Xiao, et al., Proceedings of the Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Kyoto, Japan, eds. H. Sato and T. Nakamura, World Scientific, pp. 394-398, 1991
?Estimation of Gyroscope Polhode Motion Using Trapped Magnetic Flux
C. E. Cohen, G. M. Keiser, B. W. Parkinson, Reprinted from Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 15, Number 1 pp. 152-158, January-February 1992.
?Observation of the London Moment and Trapped Flux in Precision Gyroscopes
Y. M. Xiao, W. Felson, C. H. Wu, G. M. Keiser, J. P. Turneaure, Proceedings of the Applied Superconductivity Conference, Chicago, Illinois, August, 1992.
?Magnetic Flux Distribution on a Spherical Superconducting Shell
Y. Xiao, S. Buchman, G. M. Keiser, B. Muhlfelder, J. P. Turneaure, C.H. Wu, Physica B, 194-196, 65-66, North-Holland, 1994.
?Trapped Flux Reduction in a Spherical Niobium Shell at 1 mG
R. W. Brumley, S. Buchman, Y. M. Xiao, Physica B 194-196, 1793-1794, 1994.
?A Low Temperature Gyroscope Clock for Gravitational Redshift Experiment
S. Buchman, et al.
?An Ultra High Vacuum Low Temperature Gyroscope Clock
T. Walter, J. P. Turneaure, S. Buchman, C. W. F. Everitt, G. M. Keiser, Physica B, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Low Temperature Physics LT-19, ed. David S. Betts, Brighton, Sussex, p. 155 August 1990.
?Critical States in 2D Disk-shaped Type-II Superconductors in Periodic External Magnetic Field
J. Zhu, J. Mester, J. Lockhart, J. P. Turneaure, Physica (C212). pp. 216-222, 1993.
?Field-dependent Critical Currents in Thin Nb Superconducting Disks
J. Zhu, J. Lockhart, J. P. Turneaure, Physica C, Vol. 241, pp. 17-24, 1995.
?Multilayer Films of TiC, Ti and Cu for the Gravity Probe B Relativity Mission Gyroscopes
P. Zhou et al., presented at ICMCTF-95, San Diego, California, April 24-28, 1995, Surface & Coatings Technology 76-77 516-520 (1995).
?Gravity Gradient Gyroscope Drifts in the NASA Relativity Mission/Gravity Probe A Experiment
N. Jeremy Kasdin, Christian Gauthier, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 44, pp. 129-147,No. 2, April-June 1996
?The Design and Testing of the Gravity Probe B Suspension and Charge Control Systems
Saps Buchman, William Bencze, Robert Brumley, Bruce Clarke, G. M. Keiser, W. W. Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford University, 1998 The American Institute of Physics 1-56396-848-7/98
?The Expected Performance of the Gravity Probe B Electrically Suspended Gyroscopes as Differential Accelerometers
G. M. Keiser, W. Bencze, D. Debra, Second International LISA Symposium on the Detection and Observation of Gravitational Waves in Space, AIP Conference 1998, Proceedings 456, p 188.
?Cryogenic Gyroscopes for the Relativity Mission
S. Buchman, C. W. F. Everitt, Brad Parkinson, J. P. Turneaure, G. M. Keiser, to be published in Physica B (LT 22, 1999).
Back to Top

Isolation of the Science Unit
?On Eddy Currents from Moving Point Sources of Magnetic Field in the Gravity Probe B Experiment
S.Silbergleit, G.M.Keiser, Integral methods in Science and Engineering, Volume One: Analytical Methods, Eds. C.Costanda, J.Saranen, S.Seikala, Longman, 1997, 169 Ð 173.
?Phase-Lock Roll Control for Inertially-Pointing Spacecraft by Correlations of Star Intensity Profiles with a Stored Reference
B. W. Parkinson, J. R. Crerie, 13th Annual AAS Guidance and Control Conference, Keystone, Colorado, February 3-7, 1990.
?Support Dependent Torques in the Relativity Gyroscope Experiment
G. M. Keiser, Proceedings of the Fourth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, ed. R. Ruffini, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 465-475, Elsevier Science Publishers 1986.
?Gravity Probe B Gyroscope Charge Control Using Field-Emission Cathodes
S. Buchman, T. Quinn, G. M. Keiser, D. Gill, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B11 (2), March/April, 1993.
?Cosmic Radiation Issues for Gravitational Experiments in Space
S. Buchman, Y. Jafry, Proceedings of the XXXIInd Rencontres de Moriond,Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe, Series: Moriond Workshop,
?Gyroscopes and Charge Control for the Relativity Mission Gravity Probe B
Saps Buchman, C. W. F. Everitt, B. Parkinson, J. P. Turneaure, R. Brumley, D.Gill, G. M. Keiser, Y. Xiao, Proceedings of the 32nd COSPAR, Scientific Assembly in Nagoya, Japan, July 12-19 July, 1998. To be published in Advances inSpace Research. Published Adv, Space Res. 25(6) 1181, Year 2000.
?General Treatment of Geodetic and Lense - Thirring effects on an Orbiting Gyroscope
R.J.Adler, A.S.Silbergleit, Nonlinear Gravitodynamics. The Lense - Thirring Effect, Eds. R. Ruffini, C. Sigizmondi, World Scientific, New Jersey-London-Singapore-Hong-Kong, 2003, 145 Ð 154.
?Classical Torque Errors in Gravity Probe B Experiment
A.S.Silbergleit, M.I. Heifetz, G.M. Keiser, Nonlinear Gravitodynamics. The Lense Ð Thirring Effect, Eds. R. Ruffini, C. Sigizmondi, World Scientific, New Jersey-London-Singapore-Hong-Kong, 2003, 155 Ð 171.
Back to Top

Navigation
?Twenty Milliarcsec Pointing System for the Rolling GP-B Spacecraft
B. W. Parkinson, N. J. Kasdin, Aerospace Century XXI, Vol. 66, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, AAS88-005, 1988.
?GP-B Orbit Modeling and Injection Requirements
P. Axelrad, R. H.Vassar, B. W. Parkinson, AAS91-164, Winter of 1990
?Flight Tests of Attitude Determination Using GPS Compared Against an Inertial Navigation Unit
C. E. Cohen, B. D. McNally, B. W. Parkinson, ION National Technical Meeting, San Francisco, California, January 1993.
?GPS Receiver Satellite/Antenna Selection Algorithm for the Stanford Gravity Probe B Relativity Mission
J. Li, A. Ndili, L. Ward, S. Buchman, The Institute of Navigation conference held in San Diego, CA, January 25-27, 1999. Proceedings of 1999 National Technical Meeting, pp.541-550.
Back to Top

Optics
?Optical Homogeneity of Gyroscope Blanks for the Gravity Probe B Experiment
J. M. De Freitas, M. A. Player, presented at the Applied Optics and Opto-electronic Conference, University of York, UK, September 5-8, 1994.
?Ultrahigh Precision Measurements of Optical Heterogeneity of High Quality Fused Silica
J. M. DeFreitas, M. A. Player, Applied Physics Letter 66 (26) June 26, 1995.
?Polarization Effects in Heterodyne Interferometry
J. M. DeFretias, M. A. Player, Journal of Modern Optics, Vol. 42, No. 9, 1875-1899, 1995.
Back to Top

Project Management Papers
?Gradiometry Coexperiments on the Gravity Probe B and STEP Missions
M. Tapley, J. V. Breakwell, C. W. F. Everitt, R. Van Patten, P. Worden, Jr., Adv. Space Res. Vol. II, No. 6, p. (6) 182, 1991.
?The Gravity Probe-B Relativity Gyroscope Experiment: Approach to a Flight Mission
J. P. Turneaure, C. W. F. Everitt, B. W. Parkinson, Proceedings of the Fourth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, ed. R.ÊRuffini, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 411-464, Elsevier Science Publishers 1986.
?Stanford Relativity Gyro Experiment-Preface
C. W. F. Everitt, Preface, Stanford Relativity Gyro Experiment, (NASA Gravity Probe B SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 619, 23-24, January 1986.
?The Gravity Probe B Relativity Mission
Sasha Buchman. C. W. F. Everitt, B. Parkinson, J. P. turneaure, D. DeBra, D. Bardas, W. Bencze, R. Brumley, D. Gill, G. Gutt, D. H. Gwo, G. M. Keiser, J. Lipa, J. Lockhart, J. Mester, B. Muhlfelder, M. Taber, S. Wang, Y. Xiao, and P. Zhou , Proceedings of the 32nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly in Nagoya, Japan, July 12- 19 July, 1998. To be published in Advances in Space Research. Published Adv. Space Res. 25(6), 1177, Year 2000.
?Co-Co-Experiments in Gravitational Physics with GP-B and STEP
M. B. Tapley, C. W. F. Everitt, Adv. Space Res. Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. (7) 77-(7) 80, Great Britain 1993.
?Development of the Gravity Probe B Flight Mission
J. P. Turneare, C. W. F. Everitt, et al, (submitted to Adv. In Space Research) (Unpublished as at May 17, 2000) COSPAR 1996
?Hardware Development for Gravity Probe
D. Bardas, W.S. Cheung, D. Gill, R. Hacker, G. M. Keiser, J. A. Lipa, M. Macgirvin, T. Saldinger, J. P. Turneaure,M. S. Wooding, Stanford Unviversity, J. M. Lockhart Stanford and San Francisco University, SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 619, 23-24, Los Angeles, California, January 1986.
?Gravity Probe B Payload Verification and Test Program
M. A. Taber, D. Bardas, et. al, .Adv. Cryo. Eng. 47 (AIP Conf. Proc. 613), 1241 (2002).
?Multisensor Data Integration in the NASA/Stanford Gravity Probe B Relativity Mission
M. I. Heifetz, G. M. Keiser, A. S. Krechetov, and A. S. Silbergleit, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Fusion, July 10-13, 2000, Paris, France.
?Systems Engineering for the Gravity Probe B Program
Lou S. Young, (NASA Gravity Probe B) SPIE Proceedings Vol. 619, 23-24, January 1986.
?Credibility of GP-B's Gyroscope Test of General Relativity
D. Debra, B. Parkinson, G. Keiser, C. W. F. Everitt, S. Buchman,(0.2milliarcseconds per year), Gravity Probe B Stanford University. Presentation at the 25th Annual AAS Guidance and Control Conference, February 6-10 2002, Breckenridge, Colorado, Sponsored by Rocky Mountain Section.
Back to Top

Readout System Papers
?An Ultralow Noise Amplifier for Superconductive Detectors
G. M. Gutt, J. S. Kim , M. R. Condron II, J. M. Lockhart, B. Muhlfelder, Third International Superconductive Electronics Conference, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, June 25-27, 1991.
?Noise Measurements on DC-SQUIDs with Varied Design
M. R. Condron II, G. M. Gutt, B. Muhlfelder, J. M. Lockhart, J. P. Turneaure, M. E. Huber, M. W. Cromar, E. K. Houseman, H. Koch and H. LYbbig, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 312-6, 1992.
?Evaluation of GaAs FETs for Cryogenic Readout
R. K. Kirschmann, S. V. Lemoff, J. A. Lipa, Proceedings from Conference on Infrared Readout Electronics, Orlando, Florida, SPIE Vol. 1684 April, 1992.
?A Method for Simulating a Flux-Locked dc SQUID
G. M. Gutt, N. J. Kasdin, M. R. Condron II, B. Muhlfelder, J. M. Lockhart, M. W. Cromar, Paper EBC-2, 1992, Applied Superconductivity Conference, Chicago, Illinois, August, 1992. Being considered for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity.
?Production of Ultralow Magnetic Fields for Gravity Probe B (GP-B)
M. A. Taber, D. O. Murray, J. M. Lockhart, D. J. Frank, D. Donegan, 1993 Cryogenic Engineering Conference. To be published in Advances in Cryogenic Engineering, Vol. 39, 77, 1993.
?Further Evaluation of GaAsFETs for Cryogenic Readout
R. K. Kirschman, J. A. Lipa, Proceedings from Conference on Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation, SPIE Vol. 1946, pp. 350-364, April, 1993.
?Charge Measurement
Saps Buchman, Stanford University, John Mester, Stanford University, T. J. Sumner, Imperial College, by CRC Press LLC, 1999. The Measurement, Instrumentation, and Sensors Handbook.
?Testing the GP-B Telescope Readout Electronics on a Flight Quality Telescope
S. Wang, D-H Gwo, K. A. Bower, L. W. Huff, R. K. Kirschman, J. A. Lipa, M. Jhabvala, S. Babu, N. Das, J. Phys. IV France 8 (1998)
?SQUID Readout and Ultra-Low Magnetic Fields for Gravity Probe B (GP-B)
J. M. Lockhart, (NASA Gravity Probe B) SPIE Proceedings Vol. 619, 23-24, January 1986.
?A Robust SQUID System for Space Use
B. Muhlfelder, J. M. Lockhart, M. Luo, T. McGinnis, Proceedings of the Eighth Marcel Grossman Meeting on General Relativity. Ed: Tsvi Piran, World Scientific, Singapore, Part A, pp 1154-1159, 1999.
?Precise Trapped Flux Signal Analysis in Gravity Probe B Experiment
Elliot Mandel, Physics Undergraduate Honors Thesis, supervised by Alexander S. Silbergleit, June 2000.
?The Gravity Probe B Gyroscope Readout System
B. Muhlfelder, J. M. Lockhart and G. M. Gutt, 2003 COSPAR Adv. Space Res. Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 1397-1400, 2003.
?Fabrication and characterization of low-Noise Cryogenic Si JFETs
R. T. Goldberg, M. D. Jhabvala, Solid State Device Development Branch, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, R. K. Kirschman, Suwen Wang, D.-H Gwo, J. A. Lipa, Hansen
Back to Top

Program Status
?The Gravity Probe B Relativity Gyroscope Experiment: An Update on Progress
B. W. Parkinson, C. W. F. Everitt, J. P. Turneaure, Aerospace Century XXI, Vol. 64, Advances in Astronautical Sciences, AAS 86-319, San Diego, California, 1987.
?Results from the First Integrated System Tests of the Gravity Probe B Experiment
M. Taber, et al., Proceedings of the First William Fairbank Meeting on Relativistic Gravitational Experiments in Space, Rome, Italy, eds. M. Demianski and C. W. F. Everitt, Advanced Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology, Vol. 7, World Scientific, pp. 211-226, 1990.
?Gravity Probe: II Hardware Development; Progress Towards the Flight Instrument
D. Bardas, et al., ÒGravity Probe: II Hardware Development; Progress Towards the Flight Instrument,Ó Proceedings of the Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Kyoto, Japan, eds. H. Sato and T. Nakamura, World Scientific, pp. 382-393, 1991.
?Status of the Cryogenic Inertial Reference System for the Gravity Probe B Mission
J. A. Lipa, D.H. Gwo, R. K. Kirschman, SPIE Vol. 1765 Cryogenic Optical Systems and Instruments V, 1992.
?Gravity Probe B: Status and Flight Plans
J. C. Mester, C. W. F. Everitt, B. W. Parkinson, J. P. Turneaure, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Early Universe, Madras, India (Dec. 1994).
Back to Top

Telescope
?Cryogenic Star-Tracking Telescope for Gravity Probe-B
C. W. F. Everitt, D. E. Davidson, R. A. Van Patten, SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 619, Los Angeles, California, 23-24 January, 1986.
?Status of the Cryogenic Telescope and Guide Star for Gravity Probe B
Suwen Wang, D.-H Gwo, K. A. Bower, L. W. Huff, J. A. Lipa, Proceedings of the 32nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly in Nagoya,Japan, July 12-19, 1998.
?Optical and Pneumatic Vibration Isolation for Optimal Performance of an Artificial Star
E. Acworth, submitted to Precision Engineering: Journal of the American Society for Precision Engineering. (Manuscript has been edited, needs final preparation, per author February 09, 2004).
?The Gravity Probe B Star Tracking Telescope
D. H. Gwo, S. Wang, K. A. Bower, D. E. Davidson, P. Ehrensberger, L. Huff, E. Romero, M. T. Sullivan, K. Triebes and J. A. Lipa, Adv. Space Res. Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 1401-1405, 2003.
?Science Telescope for Gravity Probe B
S. Wang, R. P. Farley, J. H. Goebel, M. Heietz, J. A. Lipa and J. P. Turneaure, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5172 Cryogenic Optical Systems and Instruments X, edited by James B. Heaney, Lawrence G. Burriesci, (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2003), page 108.
?A Cryogenic Optical Telescope for Inertial Pointing in the Milli-arc-sec Range
S. Wang, D.-H Gwo, R. K. Kirschman, J. A. Lipa, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Low-Temperature Physics Prague, August 8-14, 1996, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, Vol 46 (1996), Suppl. S5.
?The Telescope Readout Electronics for the Gravity Probe Satellite
H. P. Demroff, et al, J. Phys. IV France 8 (1998)
Back to Top

Relativity Related Theory
?Proposal for a Satellite Test of the Coriolis Prediction of General Relativity
G. E. Pugh. Reprinted in Nonlinear Gravitodynamics, The Lense Thirring Effect, a documentary introduction to current research. Editors: Remo J. Ruffini, Costantino Sigismondi, 2002, pp. 414-425. Orininally Published as U.S. Department of Defense Weapons Systems Evaluation Group Research Memorandum No. 11, 1959.
?Motion of a Gyroscope According to Einstein's Theory of Gravitation
L. I. Schiff. Reprinted in Nonlinear Gravitodynamics, The Lense Thirring Effect, a documentary introduction to current research. Editors: Remo J. Ruffini, Costantino Sigismondi, 2002, pp. 427-438. Orininally Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 46, 1960.
?Gravitation, Relativity, and Precise Experimentation
C. W. F. Everitt, Proceedings of the First Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, pp. 545-615, North Holland, 1977.
?Gravity and Inertia
P. W. Worden, Jr., C. W. F. Everitt, Resource Letter G1-1, American Association of Physics Teachers, pp. 494-500, June 1982.
?Cryogenic Equivalence Principle Experiment
P. W. Worden, Jr., Proceedings of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meeting, 1983.
?Do Cosmic Strings Violate the Equivalence Principle?
D. Kalligas, Proceedings of the First William Fairbank Meeting on Relativistic Gravitational Experiments in Space, Advanced Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology, Vol. 7 Rome, World Scientific, pp. 26-30, 1990.
?Gravity Probe B: I. The Scientific Implications
C. W. F. Everitt, Proceedings of the Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Kyoto, Japan, eds. H. Sato and T. Nakamura, World Scientific, pp. 1632-1644, 1991.
?Flat FRW Models with Variable G and A
D. Kalligas, P. Wesson, C. W. F. Everitt, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1992.
?The Classical Tests in Kaluza-Klein Gravity
D. Kalligas, P. S. Wesson, C. W. F. Everitt, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 439, No. 2, Part 1, February 1, 1995.
?Bianchi Type I Cosmological Models with Variable G and D A Comment
D. Kalligas, P. S. Wesson, C.W. F. Everitt, Reprinted from General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 27, No. 6, 1995.
?Analytical Approach to Spherically Symmetric Solutions of the Einstein Scalar Field Equations I
J. E. Berberian, A. S. Silbergleit, "Analytical and Numerical Approaches to Relativity Source of Gravitations Radiation." Proceeding of The Spanish Relativity Meeting, Palma, de Mallorca, September 1997.
?Analytical Approach to Spherically-Symmetric Solutions of the Einstein Scalar Field Equations II
J. E. Berberian, A. S. Silbergleit, Published in Analytical and Numerical Approaches to Relativity Sources of Gravitational Radiation, 1998, p.p. 229-236.
?Explicit green's function of a Boundary Value Problem for a Sphere and Trapped Flux Analysis in Gravity Probe B Experiment
M. Nemenman, A. S. Silbergleit, Jounal of Applied Physics 86 (1) 614-62
?General Treatment of Orbiting Gyroscope Precession
R. J. Adler and A. S. Silbergleit, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2000.
?Gravity and the Uncertainty Principle
R. J. Adler and D.I. Santiago, Mod. Phys. Let. A, 1371, 1999.
?Metric for an Oblate Earth
R.J. Adler, General Relativity and Gravitation, 1999.
?On the Detectability of Quantum Spacetime Foam with Gravitational Wave Interferometers
R. J. Adler, I. M. Nemenman, J. M. Overduin, and D. I. Santiago, Phys. Let. B 477, 424, 2000.
?Global Dynamics of Cosmological Expansion with a Minimally Coupled Scalar Field
Santiago and A S. Silbergleit, Physics Letters A, April 3, 2000.
?The Generalized Uncertainty Principle and Black Hole Remnants
R. J. Adler, Pisin chen, and David L. Santiago, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 33, No. 12 December 2001.
?Realtivistic Diskoseismology II. Analytical Results for c-Modes
A. S. Silbergleit, R. V. Wagoner and M. Ortega-Rodriquez, Astrophys, J, 548 (Feb. 10, 2001) 335-347.
?Covariant calculation of general relativistic effects in an orbiting gyroscope experiment
C. Will, Physical Review Letters-D, 67, 2003 (March 23, 2003), 1-7.
?Relativity at the centenary
C. Will, Physics World, January 2005, 27-32.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Disciple of Sagan on June 18, 2014, 02:28:09 AM
I think I told you what was my intent already.
I just want an example of a "good" scientific method so mine would be as good. I chose Gravity because of it's immaterial status.

Yes, I remember you saying that. I am sure you have done some reading in regards to proving gravity beforehand, just as I have. I'm just not convinced that the reason you have given is the sole reason.

The question I have at the moment is why you believe gravity is the "best" example to use with the intent of helping you with your own "God" example? After all, gravity... unlike your "God" entity... is a mindless force with no interest (or even possessing the capability to be interested) in whether or not anyone believes in it's existence.

One point that bears repeating: your "God"... going by your own words... cannot be proven through the scientific method, so your proposal to craft an "as good" experiment is therefore illogical and nonsensical.

Oh, well. It's your prerogative to stick with gravity. Which of the following do you wish for us to discuss in relation to the scientific method: "what" is gravity or "why" gravity works? You do understand the distinction, correct?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Anfauglir on June 18, 2014, 03:03:31 AM
Maybe.  Define "gravity", and define "god", and I may take you up on it.
Hmm How about those? Can you work with that?
God : An impersonal and universal spiritual presence or force; immaterial being that exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains.
Gravity : Force exercised by two bodies onto each other;  immaterial thing that exist as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

Almost.  Define "spiritual", and "immaterial" (in both definitions)."force" (likewise), "presence", and the difference (if any) between "presence" and "force" - are you defining it as one thing, or the other, or both?

The scientific method is one where precision is important, as I'm sure you're aware.  Terms need to be defined first.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Graybeard on June 18, 2014, 12:46:17 PM
However, you are claiming that, unlike all other things that exist only in the mind and nowhere else, the greatest possible being, if it exists in the mind, must also exist in reality.

This is "special pleading" as you have no evidence to make an exception to the rule.

Here is how I see you "counter argument", for a plastic chair :
"However, I am claiming that, unlike all other chairs and nothing else, the plastic chair, if it's a chair, must also be in plastic."
I don't see how this could be considered as a counter argument or special pleading.
There are some concepts that even intelligent sane people cannot seem to understand. I think I have found the one you do not understand.

But first: unless I am reading this wrongly, this sentence does not make sense: Luk: "Here is how I see you "counter argument", for a plastic chair :" Do you mean "This is my (i.e. Luk's) "counter argument", in favour of he example of a plastic chair being a good argument for the existence of God:"?

Special Pleading: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading please try to understand this, because it shows that you simply cannot argue that GPB is an exception to the idea "Just because something exists in your mind, does not mean that it exists in reality."

OK, I'll bite on "Gravity"

(http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png)

Ask question: “Why do things fall downwards?”
Do background research: “Hmmm, most things fall down to earth, but some go up!
Things that go up do so because the displacement buoyancy is greater than the force pulling them down.
What is that force that pulls things down? 

Construct hypothesis: It is something to do with relative masses.
This would explain planetary motion and why Australians do not fall off the earth!

Test with experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry#How_gravity_is_measured

Does it work? Yes

Analyse data and draw conclusions: http://www.universetoday.com/57713/gravity-formula/

Results align with hypothesis

Communicate results to Lukvance who will give us the formula for proving mathematically that God exists outside our minds.




Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 01:25:40 PM
Oh, well. It's your prerogative to stick with gravity. Which of the following do you wish for us to discuss in relation to the scientific method: "what" is gravity or "why" gravity works? You do understand the distinction, correct?
Yes. I understand. Whatever you think necessary to prove Gravity.
I want proof that Gravity exist outside your mind. I understand that such proof must include the scientific method.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on June 18, 2014, 01:27:47 PM
oh luk wants scientific method for proof of gravity, please refute these luk, this is just one small aprt of one experiment. please read every detail and refute them. luk has me on ignore so can someone re-post these, more in a follow up post:

Data Analysis
...

What is with this post?  The formatting?  It looks like you did a copy-paste, but did not include your reference, but I cannot tell.  Please clarify.  If you have a link please provide it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Defiance on June 18, 2014, 02:48:52 PM
No, eh! I prefer not stonewalling.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 04:09:36 PM
Ask question: “Why do things fall downwards?”
Do background research: “Hmmm, most things fall down to earth, but some go up!
Things that go up do so because the displacement buoyancy is greater than the force pulling them down.
What is that force that pulls things down? 

Construct hypothesis: It is something to do with relative masses.
This would explain planetary motion and why Australians do not fall off the earth!

Test with experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry#How_gravity_is_measured

Does it work? Yes

Analyse data and draw conclusions: http://www.universetoday.com/57713/gravity-formula/

Results align with hypothesis

Communicate results to Lukvance who will give us the formula for proving mathematically that God exists outside our minds.
Ask question: “Why do people get magically healed?”
Do background research: “Most people who get sick go the the hospital and get cured by following medical assistance, but some of them just pray and get cures without medical assistance.
What is that force that cure them?"

Construct hypothesis: It is something to do with God.
This would explain why God is living outside our head.

Test with experiment: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/how_lourdes_cures_recognized.pdf

Does it work? Yes

Analyse data and draw conclusions: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

Results align with hypothesis

Communicate results to you : There is a force curing people from illness. This force is God.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 18, 2014, 04:18:05 PM
Will get link when next on a PC.

not stonewalling luk has requested scientific method to prove gravity ....i provided many someone please show him.


you guys are either enjoying mocking his seeming lack of intelligence by arguing the same empty arguments ad naseum i or you are being trolled.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 18, 2014, 05:12:15 PM
First, Lukvance's initial question is still begging the question by assuming that people do heal through "magic", whatever that is.  So it should be "healed through unknown means".  Second, he apparently makes no effort to tell whether prayer has an actual effect or not; instead, he simply assumes that prayer allows some unknown force to enact healings, even though we have no means whatsoever of actually detecting this presumed force, let alone linking it to the act of prayer.  In fact, his whole case appears to be based on a non-statistical (and very possibly incorrect) correlation; that there are some people who scientists do not believe would naturally be able to heal who do in fact heal (after praying/visiting Lourdes/physically touching the water there/other things not considered/some combination thereof), and therefore this proves that his god exists.

This ignores the fact that even today, medical diagnoses are far from foolproof.  Doctors are often right, but there is plenty of room for error in their diagnoses.  Even accounting for that, there is much we don't fully understand about the human body and its healing processes, let alone the effects of belief and will on them.  Therefore, we cannot simply assume that some outside force which we can't even detect and is apparently quite picky in what it presumably affects, how it affects it, and how much of a difference it makes is worth consideration.

Imagine if gravity only worked a small percentage of the time, under certain conditions, and wasn't consistent even then.  It would not then be reasonable to consider the theory of gravity to be an acceptable scientific explanation.  The reason we can is because gravity is consistent; it always works, and its effects can be precisely measured.  Any variances can be specifically attributed to something that is related to that variance.

By comparison, his 'explanation' for the 'miraculous' healings at Lourdes doesn't even make an effort to explain why only a tiny fraction of the people who visit there are healed, let alone why the healings are so wildly inconsistent (in how they happen, in when they happen, in why they happen, and so on).  He can certainly point to his god as the reason, but by so doing, he is making his explanation non-scientific no matter how much he tries to make it look like one, because the scientific method only works when you can isolate the variable being tested for.  If that variable can change itself - say, by deciding whether or not to do something - then no test can possibly be conclusive.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 18, 2014, 05:16:42 PM
"you are being trolled"

Well, duh.

Qualify the above and it will make more sense, like so: "you are being trolled, but the members of this board are largely intelligent people who like to argue, and luk keeps coming back for more, so he is being tolerated."

I frequently learn new things or make better sense of a difficult concept in these conversations. It's not really for luk's benefit that this is continuing - no one actually expects him to suddenly leap to new and improved conclusions.

Don't worry about it, one way or another, he'll eventually go away. He ought to be grateful that the site had a failure - it wiped out all the corners he had painted himself into. Given enough time, he'll back into them again.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 18, 2014, 05:36:10 PM
By comparison, his 'explanation' for the 'miraculous' healings at Lourdes doesn't even make an effort to explain why only a tiny fraction of the people who visit there are healed, let alone why the healings are so wildly inconsistent (in how they happen, in when they happen, in why they happen, and so on).  He can certainly point to his god as the reason, but by so doing, he is making his explanation non-scientific no matter how much he tries to make it look like one, because the scientific method only works when you can isolate the variable being tested for.  If that variable can change itself - say, by deciding whether or not to do something - then no test can possibly be conclusive.

That reminds me..... I recall a question (I'm almost certain it came from nogodsforme) about why people had to travel to Lourdes specifically, as luk was quite insistent that the water was NOT changed in any way, and was NOT the actual source/cause (??? whatever he claimed, I can't recall the exact wording) of the miraculous healing.

Did that ever get addressed? Was there any explanation, and if so, what was it?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 06:16:34 PM
Imagine if gravity only worked a small percentage of the time, under certain conditions, and wasn't consistent even then.  It would not then be reasonable to consider the theory of gravity to be an acceptable scientific explanation.  The reason we can is because gravity is consistent; it always works, and its effects can be precisely measured.  Any variances can be specifically attributed to something that is related to that variance.
Here is your counter argument. The rest of what you said was (for me) just you showing of.
You counter argument suppose that miracle works only a small percentage of the time when in fact it works every time!
I think you misunderstand the procedure that you have to follow to get the miracle.
Could you give us an example of when a miracle doesn't work?

You should be able to understand that the miracle is just the observable effect that shows you that God exist.
It is just like this little line in the LHC[1] result screen that shows you that Higgs Boson exist.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 06:21:32 PM
That reminds me..... I recall a question (I'm almost certain it came from nogodsforme) about why people had to travel to Lourdes specifically, as luk was quite insistent that the water was NOT changed in any way, and was NOT the actual source/cause (??? whatever he claimed, I can't recall the exact wording) of the miraculous healing.

Did that ever get addressed? Was there any explanation, and if so, what was it?
Yes. People don't have to go to Lourdes to live a miracle. I personally lived one.
Lourdes is to miracle what the LHC is to the higgs boson.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 18, 2014, 06:30:59 PM
That reminds me..... I recall a question (I'm almost certain it came from nogodsforme) about why people had to travel to Lourdes specifically, as luk was quite insistent that the water was NOT changed in any way, and was NOT the actual source/cause (??? whatever he claimed, I can't recall the exact wording) of the miraculous healing.

Did that ever get addressed? Was there any explanation, and if so, what was it?
Yes. People don't have to go to Lourdes to live a miracle. I personally lived one.
Lourdes is to miracle what the LHC is to the higgs boson.

No analogies luk. Just explain the connection between the location "Lourdes' and the occurrence of "miracles". I recall you were insistent that the water was unchanged, so what is the connection?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 06:35:26 PM
No analogies luk. Just explain the connection between the location "Lourdes' and the occurrence of "miracles". I recall you were insistent that the water was unchanged, so what is the connection?
Seriously? You still asking that question. My analogy wasn't clear enough? Why did you dismiss it?
Lourdes is a place where you can measure miracles (it has all the instruments needed there). Is that clear enough for you?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Airyaman on June 18, 2014, 06:39:23 PM
You mean there's such a thing as "miracle measuring equipment"?  :?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 06:43:43 PM
You mean there's such a thing as "miracle measuring equipment"?  :?
Grrr. What was the scientific method I showed for!?
Of course there is!
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 18, 2014, 06:49:22 PM
No analogies luk. Just explain the connection between the location "Lourdes' and the occurrence of "miracles". I recall you were insistent that the water was unchanged, so what is the connection?
Seriously? You still asking that question.

Yes, Captain Obvious, I am.

Quote
My analogy wasn't clear enough? Why did you dismiss it?

It's clarity TO ME is not relevant in this case - I'm skeptical of it's clarity to YOU. Thus far, you've not demonstrated a firm grasp of science and I'm not willing to go down whatever rabbit hole you leap into just because you went there. Just answer the question.

Quote
Lourdes is a place where you can measure miracles
??? This is meaningless.

Quote

(it has all the instruments needed there).
As is this.

Quote
Is that clear enough for you?

Not remotely. Try again please. If the water is not the source of the miracle, why do people in need of miraculous healing have to go to the water?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 18, 2014, 06:51:57 PM
You mean there's such a thing as "miracle measuring equipment"?  :?
Grrr. What was the scientific method I showed for!?
Of course there is!

Oh, do tell.

(Aside to WWGHA members who are not lukvance - Am I the only one hearing Miracle Max and his lovely wife right abut now?)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 07:00:36 PM
If the water is not the source of the miracle, why do people in need of miraculous healing have to go to the water?
Definitively, you are having trouble with simple words.
THEY DON'T NEED TO GO!
We know of those who went because we "measured" them there.
People don't have to go to Lourdes to live a miracle. I personally lived one.
Lourdes is to miracle what the LHC is to the higgs boson.
Is that clear enough? (I said it twice and made it bigger so you might see it this time if you missed it the first time)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 18, 2014, 07:14:13 PM
If the water is not the source of the miracle, why do people in need of miraculous healing have to go to the water?
Definitively, you are having trouble with simple words.
THEY DON'T NEED TO GO!
We know of those who went because we "measured" them there.
People don't have to go to Lourdes to live a miracle. I personally lived one.
Lourdes is to miracle what the LHC is to the higgs boson.
Is that clear enough? (I said it twice and made it bigger so you might see it this time if you missed it the first time)

So why is all the miracle measuring equipment there?

What are you attempting to convey luk? Repeating yourself is not going to make your response more clear.

Are you claiming to have been miraculously healed? Or are you speaking of some other type of miracle? I've been VERY CLEAR that I'm speaking of miraculous healing, but your reply  BOTH TIMES (<--- is this really as helpful as you seem to think? I don't see it, but you seem convinced that it's effective, so I'll give it a whirl) didn't say anything about healing, you replace that with "live a miracle" which is also ambiguous and meaningless with no context as to what you think qualifies s "living a miracle".

So no, it's still not clear enough as you haven't actually answered my question yet.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 18, 2014, 07:16:57 PM
You mean there's such a thing as "miracle measuring equipment"?  :?
Grrr. What was the scientific method I showed for!?
Of course there is!

Oh, do tell.



I'm going to want some follow up from you on this post too luk. In case my words are not clear, I'm asking you to tell us more about this miracle measuring equipment.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on June 18, 2014, 07:17:21 PM
If the water is not the source of the miracle, why do people in need of miraculous healing have to go to the water?
Definitively, you are having trouble with simple words.
THEY DON'T NEED TO GO!
We know of those who went because we "measured" them there.
People don't have to go to Lourdes to live a miracle. I personally lived one.
Lourdes is to miracle what the LHC is to the higgs boson.
Is that clear enough? (I said it twice and made it bigger so you might see it this time if you missed it the first time)

You need to explain in what way Lourdes serves as a way to measure miracles.

What are the measurement units of a 'miracle'?  Percentage of individuals who received some detectable manner of healing at Lourdes vs. percentage of individuals who received some detectable manner of healing in the general populace of the globe?  I dunno but that seems reasonable, doesn't it?

But perhaps no.  Perhaps it is not a function of a greater number of miracles that occur at the location of Lourdes over locations that are not Lourdes.  Ok, fine, but then what is it, and what is the process for making a measurement?  You are making the claim that Lourdes provides some manner of detecting the presence or occurrence of miracles, so now it's time to pony up an explanation of why that is the case.

Perhaps you can try it like this:
<You insert something here> is to Lourdes as 'the fact that the energy levels of the predictions made by the existence of the Higgs boson (e.g. the curve of the path of other particles that are generated at such high energies gets affected in a way that objectively either coincides or does not coincide with the predictions made by the existence of the Higgs boson) can only be done at the LHC' is to the Higgs boson.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 08:33:20 PM
So why is all the miracle measuring equipment there?
I'm sorry, they are not all there. I hope I don't have to explain to you why all the measuring equipment of miracles of Lourdes are at Lourdes.

Quote
Are you claiming to have been miraculously healed? Or are you speaking of some other type of miracle?
I don't think miracles should be classified in types. Are there types of Higgs Bosons? If you want to talk about the miracle I lived I will gladly talk about it with you in another thread.
I wish ton return on the subject at hand, meaning the existence of God "proved" by the scientific method.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 08:35:31 PM
You mean there's such a thing as "miracle measuring equipment"?  :?
Grrr. What was the scientific method I showed for!?
Of course there is!
Oh, do tell.
I'm going to want some follow up from you on this post too luk. In case my words are not clear, I'm asking you to tell us more about this miracle measuring equipment.
Sorry, did you read Reply #203? You should find a link there with all the "tools" used to find a miracle under the "test the experiment" part.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 18, 2014, 08:36:41 PM
In other words, you have no answer and do not wish to discuss miracles and Lourdes any further, lest you be forced to admit that you are making it up as you go along.

Got it. Have a nice night.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 18, 2014, 08:38:44 PM
You mean there's such a thing as "miracle measuring equipment"?  :?
Grrr. What was the scientific method I showed for!?
Of course there is!
Oh, do tell.
I'm going to want some follow up from you on this post too luk. In case my words are not clear, I'm asking you to tell us more about this miracle measuring equipment.
Sorry, did you read Reply #203? You should find a link there with all the "tools" used to find a miracle under the "test the experiment" part.

No I didn't. I'm asking you to explain it. But I'm bored with you now and am going to find something else to do, so no rush. I'll check back tomorrow.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 08:54:53 PM
You need to explain in what way Lourdes serves as a way to measure miracles.
It is where the equipment is.

Quote
What are the measurement units of a 'miracle'?
Same as the measurement unit of an Higgs Boson. One? I'm not sure if its apply.

Quote
Percentage of individuals who received some detectable manner of healing at Lourdes vs. percentage of individuals who received some detectable manner of healing in the general populace of the globe? I dunno but that seems reasonable, doesn't it?
No.

Quote
what is the process for making a measurement?
Reply #203

Quote
Perhaps you can try it like this:
<You insert something here> is to Lourdes as 'the fact that the energy levels of the predictions made by the existence of the Higgs boson (e.g. the curve of the path of other particles that are generated at such high energies gets affected in a way that objectively either coincides or does not coincide with the predictions made by the existence of the Higgs boson) can only be done at the LHC' is to the Higgs boson.
The fact that God's action can be surely detected by using all the "tools" present in Lourdes is to miracles as 'the fact that the energy levels of the predictions made by the existence of the Higgs boson (e.g. the curve of the path of other particles that are generated at such high energies gets affected in a way that objectively either coincides or does not coincide with the predictions made by the existence of the Higgs boson) can only be done at the LHC' is to the Higgs boson.[/i]
We could detect God's action in the world (the proof of his existence) anywhere but would need to move all this equipment.
There are other places than Lourdes (ex : the Vatican) who has the necessary equipment to detect it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Defiance on June 18, 2014, 09:02:25 PM
"We could detect God's action in the world (the proof of his existence)"

Nope. You have not proved him to be existent. I said from the start, you are already pre supposing that god exists, in order to answer questions about his actions.

You cannot therefore, say that his actions, (which are based on the unproven assumption) prove he is real.

You take a conclusion drawn from an unsubstantiated premises, and then use it to try and proof the said premises. Try again.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 18, 2014, 09:40:19 PM
"We could detect God's action in the world (the proof of his existence)"

Nope. You have not proved him to be existent. I said from the start, you are already pre supposing that god exists, in order to answer questions about his actions.

You cannot therefore, say that his actions, (which are based on the unproven assumption) prove he is real.

You take a conclusion drawn from an unsubstantiated premises, and then use it to try and proof the said premises. Try again.
What do you mean? Did we not suppose the existence of the Higgs Boson before looking for it?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Airyaman on June 18, 2014, 09:41:26 PM
You mean there's such a thing as "miracle measuring equipment"?  :?
Grrr. What was the scientific method I showed for!?
Of course there is!

Oh, I thought this was the science fiction section. Carry on.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Defiance on June 18, 2014, 09:54:53 PM
"We could detect God's action in the world (the proof of his existence)"

Nope. You have not proved him to be existent. I said from the start, you are already pre supposing that god exists, in order to answer questions about his actions.

You cannot therefore, say that his actions, (which are based on the unproven assumption) prove he is real.

You take a conclusion drawn from an unsubstantiated premises, and then use it to try and proof the said premises. Try again.
What do you mean? Did we not suppose the existence of the Higgs Boson before looking for it?
We "theorised" based on observed scientific data. Then bam. We found it.

Now you guys....haven't even gotten past agreeing on what and who god is.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 19, 2014, 12:06:36 AM
Here is your counter argument. The rest of what you said was (for me) just you showing of.
Or, at least, that's a convenient way to dismiss it without reading (or possibly even understanding it).  That is the problem here; every time someone says anything that contradicts your belief that miracles somehow 'prove' God's existence, you ignore it or claim it's not relevant without explaining why.  And when they explain why it was actually relevant, you either disregard it the same way or attempt to copy it for your own beliefs without really understanding it.

Quote from: Lukvance
You counter argument suppose that miracle works only a small percentage of the time when in fact it works every time!
No, miracles don't work all the time.  Otherwise they would always happen to everyone wherever they happened to be and would not be particularly special.  Your problem here is that you're only counting the hits and ignoring the far greater proportion of misses.  It's like crowing about hitting the bullseye on a dartboard when you had to throw a million darts at it just to get that one bullseye, and actually hit the dartboard a thousand times or so in total.  It's a lot less impressive when you actually look at the number of negatives it took to reach the handful of positives, isn't it?

Quote from: Lukvance
I think you misunderstand the procedure that you have to follow to get the miracle.
No, I understood it just fine.  I also understood that in a hundred fifty years, with visitors probably numbering well over a hundred million by now, there have been a total of 67 healings that the Catholic Church has claimed were miracles.  67 out of a hundred million isn't even a rounding error, and trying to excuse it by saying that a person doesn't understand the procedure or whatever else you come up with won't change that.

Quote from: Lukvance
Could you give us an example of when a miracle doesn't work?
Every single person who visits Lourdes hoping for miraculous healing and doesn't get it.  Those are all miracles that didn't happen - people who went there hoping and praying for a miraculous cure and were disappointed.  Instead, you point to the 67 "confirmed miracles" (less than one every two years, I might add) and claim that they're proof of God, and ignore the millions of people who go there yearly and get nothing for their efforts, even though every single one of them falsifies your claim about miracles happening at Lourdes.  All that does is sabotage your claim and leave you open to criticism of your methods.

Quote from: Lukvance
You should be able to understand that the miracle is just the observable effect that shows you that God exist.
Repeating something over and over won't change whether it's actually true or not.  And the fact is that your 'experiment' is only designed to catch the positives while discarding all the negatives.  You don't even have a control set up to test the proportion of "miraculous cures" in some other heavily-visited place, which is absolutely critical for any experiment.

Quote from: Lukvance
It is just like this little line in the LHC[1] result screen that shows you that Higgs Boson exist.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider)
Not the same thing at all, Lukvance.  You see, the salient point that you just keep missing is that scientists can actually perform controlled experiments using the LHC.  Yet the only thing that scientists do at Lourdes is say whether there's a known explanation or not; I'll bet the Catholic Church doesn't even bother to track the numbers of cures that do have some known scientific explanation.  If you limited the roles of scientists at the LHC to saying whether there was a known scientific explanation for the results and had a priest there to pray to God to see what the source of the results were, it wouldn't be scientific either.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: junebug72 on June 19, 2014, 06:32:03 AM
The answer to the question here is we do not know.  End of discussion.  Lukvance does not know.  He just thinks he does.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 19, 2014, 06:46:44 AM
LHC - visible, detailed manuals describing every detail of its functions and purpose. its creations are predicted, repeatable, consistent, falsifiable, can be perfomed by anyone with appropriatte training and will yield same results, can be reproduced anywhere on the planet. and reproduce the same results, actually does something, can be witnessed by anyone anytime ....


miracles at lourdes....?




god....?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on June 19, 2014, 07:40:12 AM
Test with experiment: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/how_lourdes_cures_recognized.pdf

That is neither a test nor an experiment.  An experiment produces data.  This has none.  You need to have a control group, which this does not have.  You need to show your results are statistically significant.  This does no statistics.  It is a collection of anecdotes. 

This is the problem.  You are completely ignorant.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  And you are too ignorant to recognize your ignorance.

Does it work? Yes

You have no idea.  It may, or it may not.  Nothing you linked even begins to address it.

Analyse data and draw conclusions: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

Incorrect.  There is no data and no analysis.  It is just a collection of stories from the mid19th century.  There is no way to even corroborate that the information is correct.

 


Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Mrjason on June 19, 2014, 07:43:07 AM
I wish ton return on the subject at hand, meaning the existence of God "proved" by the scientific method.

Your analogy doesn't "prove" god by the scientific method.
The only reason why we won't find a higgs boson in any given location is purely economic. Now we know how to do it we can repeat the experiment at will.

Why can these "miracles" only be detected at lourdes? Does god have a finite supply of " lourdes type miracles"? If not then why not replicate them else where?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 19, 2014, 07:59:26 AM
Go figure, waste a freakin money.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12082681/ns/health-heart_health/t/power-prayer-flunks-unusual-test/
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Mrjason on June 19, 2014, 08:17:50 AM
Go figure, waste a freakin money.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12082681/ns/health-heart_health/t/power-prayer-flunks-unusual-test/

I liked this bit

Quote
Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, who didn't take part in the study, said the results didn't surprise him.There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either," he said. "There is no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Moslem scriptures that can be constrained to the point that they can be predicted."

I read that as god is not just. Anyone else get that?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 19, 2014, 08:22:54 AM
So why is all the miracle measuring equipment there?
I'm sorry, they are not all there. I hope I don't have to explain to you why all the measuring equipment of miracles of Lourdes are at Lourdes.
That's not what I was asking but nice try at diverting.

Quote
I don't think miracles should be classified in types.
Why are you trying so hard to avoid answering my very clear question abut miraculous healing? I don't particularly care if you object to the specific word "type", pick whatever synonym you prefer, but answer the question: Are you claiming that you've been miraculously healed, or are you refering to a different type of miraculous event?

Quote
Are there types of Higgs Bosons?
Does not equate.

Quote
If you want to talk about the miracle I lived I will gladly talk about it with you in another thread.

Or you could quit dodging all over the place and just answer my very clear and direct question. Right here, where Lourdes has been under discussion and I've asked you repeatedly, while you have tied yourself up in knots trying to avoid answering me while still posting in response to my posts.

Quote
I wish ton return on the subject at hand, meaning the existence of God "proved" by the scientific method.

And I wish you to answer my very clear and direct question.

Once you have, let's get back to my other question that you HAVE provided an answer (of sorts) to. If the location of Lourdes is not important  (other than as a storage location for miracle measuring equipment), I can only conclude by your reply that you are saying that all the people who have traveled to Lourdes to get a shot a miraculous healing had no actual need to go to Lourdes to get the miraculous healing they were seeking. Am I interpreting your posts correctly?

You're in luck again luk - I'm going to be offline for a while, so take your time.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on June 19, 2014, 08:32:09 AM
You need to explain in what way Lourdes serves as a way to measure miracles.
It is where the equipment is.
There is no way you can honestly think that this would qualify as an explanation.  There is no way you can honestly think that you would not need to provide at least a high level description of what this equipment is.

Quote
Quote
What are the measurement units of a 'miracle'?
Same as the measurement unit of an Higgs Boson. One? I'm not sure if its apply.
Some of the measurements that apply to the Higgs boson are quantifiable properties like mass, charge, spin, and parity.  So I'm pretty sure they are not the same as the measurement units applicable to a 'miracle'.  You're random guess of a dimensionless number 'one' indicates that you are content to simply making sh*t up to support your views.  Very dishonest Lukvance.  Very.

Quote
Quote
Percentage of individuals who received some detectable manner of healing at Lourdes vs. percentage of individuals who received some detectable manner of healing in the general populace of the globe? I dunno but that seems reasonable, doesn't it?
No.
Well, why not?  Seems like there is are a larger percentage of people seeking miracles in Lourdes compared to not Lourdes.  Is that incorrect?

Quote
Quote
what is the process for making a measurement?
Reply #203
As you seem to have no clue what it is you're measuring in the first place, I'm pretty sure that you have no process for making a measurement.  Looking at reply #203 again, that still appears to be the case.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Graybeard on June 19, 2014, 08:50:27 AM
Communicate results to Lukvance who will give us the formula for proving mathematically that God exists outside our minds.
Ask question: “Why do people get magically healed?”
Do background research: “Most people who get sick go the the hospital and get cured by following medical assistance, but some of them just pray and get cures without medical assistance.
What is that force that cure them?"

Construct hypothesis: It is something to do with God.
This would explain why God is living outside our head.

Test with experiment: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/how_lourdes_cures_recognized.pdf

Does it work? Yes

Analyse data and draw conclusions: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

Results align with hypothesis

Communicate results to you : There is a force curing people from illness. This force is God.

Can you please provide the mathematical formula?

That is what I asked for, why are you avoiding answering?

And how do you know it is Yahweh and not Satan or Baal Hadad or Isis?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Graybeard on June 19, 2014, 11:00:58 AM
I found this. I have actually seen a Kumari... she was looking out of a window and chewing gum in a bored sort of way:

OK Luk, here is a goddess that does exist outside your mind... that is, if you believe in your mind that she is a goddess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Nix49w66s

Your god does not actually appear anywhere as a separate entity though, does he? So do you mean this goddess?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 19, 2014, 01:05:10 PM
Or, at least, that's a convenient way to dismiss it without reading (or possibly even understanding it).  That is the problem here; every time someone says anything that contradicts your belief that miracles somehow 'prove' God's existence, you ignore it or claim it's not relevant without explaining why.  And when they explain why it was actually relevant, you either disregard it the same way or attempt to copy it for your own beliefs without really understanding it.
This response has been deleted as it contradicts my instructions to Lukvance. Readers may assume that Lukvance has no argument to counter with.

Quote
Quote from: Lukvance
Your counter argument supposes that miracle works only a small percentage of the time when in fact it works every time!
No, miracles don't work all the time.  Otherwise they would always happen to everyone wherever they happened to be and would not be particularly special.  Your problem here is that you're only counting the hits and ignoring the far greater proportion of misses.  It's like crowing about hitting the bullseye on a dartboard when you had to throw a million darts at it just to get that one bullseye, and actually hit the dartboard a thousand times or so in total.  It's a lot less impressive when you actually look at the number of negatives it took to reach the handful of positives, isn't it?
I understand that you want to think a miracle to be something that can fail. But the truth is that "failed miracles" are simply not miracles. Just like "failed Higgs Boson" are simply not Higgs bosons.

Quote
Quote from: Lukvance
I think you misunderstand the procedure that you have to follow to get the miracle.
No, I understood it just fine.  I also understood that in a hundred fifty years, with visitors probably numbering well over a hundred million by now, there have been a total of 67 healings that the Catholic Church has claimed were miracles.  67 out of a hundred million isn't even a rounding error, and trying to excuse it by saying that a person doesn't understand the procedure or whatever else you come up with won't change that.
Again you are counting the number of "non miracle" it's like counting the number of "non Higgs Boson" Here is my question, if I were to tell you that each and everyone of the little lines seen on the screen that are not the Higgs Boson are "failed Higgs Boson"  will the Higgs Boson be less existent?

Quote
Quote from: Lukvance
Could you give us an example of when a miracle doesn't work?
Every single person who visits Lourdes hoping for miraculous healing and doesn't get it.  Those are all miracles that didn't happen - people who went there hoping and praying for a miraculous cure and were disappointed.  Instead, you point to the 67 "confirmed miracles" (less than one every two years, I might add) and claim that they're proof of God, and ignore the millions of people who go there yearly and get nothing for their efforts, even though every single one of them falsifies your claim about miracles happening at Lourdes.  All that does is sabotage your claim and leave you open to criticism of your methods.
I understand the mistake you made. It comes from the fact that you think a "failed miracle" is any experiment in detecting a miracle that has failed. Isn't that like you telling me that every "failed Higgs Boson" is a failed experiment in detecting the "Higgs Boson"? It doesn't make sense.

Quote
Quote from: Lukvance
You should be able to understand that the miracle is just the observable effect that shows you that God exist.
Repeating something over and over won't change whether it's actually true or not.  And the fact is that your 'experiment' is only designed to catch the positives while discarding all the negatives.  You don't even have a control set up to test the proportion of "miraculous cures" in some other heavily-visited place, which is absolutely critical for any experiment.
Is the experiment in the LHC designed to catch the positives while discarding all the negatives? Do you have a control set up to test the proportion of "Higgs Boson" in some other place in the world?

Quote
Quote from: Lukvance
It is just like this little line in the LHC[1] result screen that shows you that Higgs Boson exist.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider)
Not the same thing at all, Lukvance.  You see, the salient point that you just keep missing is that scientists can actually perform controlled experiments using the LHC.  Yet the only thing that scientists do at Lourdes is say whether there's a known explanation or not
What kind of experiment performed at Lourdes is not controlled? Isn't the only thing that scientists do at LHC is say whether there's a known explanation or not for that line on the screen?

If I resume. Your counter argument is based on "non miracle". This make as much sense as a "non Higgs Boson" (meaning all the others fundamental particles)
You say that "non miracle" are too many for miracle to even be considered.
The other counter argument that you put forward was that the scientist just say it is not anything else than a miracle so miracles don't exist.
It makes as much sense as if you were saying that the scientist just say it is not anything else than a Higgs Boson so Higgs Boson don't exist.
Finally you say that the experience does not have a control group when you know that these experiences are conducted regularly in the Vatican.

Now could you formulate solid counter arguments? or do you accept the proof I gave you? <-this is arrogant, provocative and wrong.

Lukvance,
you can provide far better arguments than the ones you have, and when you do, you should not provoke other posters.

Some people who debate take a malicious joy in causing anger in others with the intention of later reporting them. Please do not be amongst those people.
GB
Mod
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 19, 2014, 01:31:38 PM
Test with experiment: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/how_lourdes_cures_recognized.pdf
That is neither a test nor an experiment.  An experiment produces data.  This has none.  You need to have a control group, which this does not have.  You need to show your results are statistically significant.  This does no statistics.  It is a collection of anecdotes. 
Of course there is data produces by that experiments. Did you watch the video I posted about the science behind the miracles. I'll post it again later just in case it was deleted.
Of course there is a control group (in the case of the woman healing her hand the control group was other women that had their hand crushed and did not pray God to heal them) and the results are statistically significant (meaning that there are more people instantly healed after praying God than people instantly healed after not praying God)
All of those are on paper. And you can reproduce the experiment as many times as you want to have the same result.

Quote
This is the problem.  You are completely ignorant.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  And you are too ignorant to recognize your ignorance. [...] You have no idea.  It may, or it may not.  Nothing you linked even begins to address it.
That is your personal opinion. You should keep it to yourself as it doesn't help the conversation at all.

Quote
There is no way to even corroborate that the information is correct.
Yes there are records. They are there or a reason. You are not the first one trying to discredit the miracles of Lourdes you know?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 19, 2014, 01:45:24 PM
If the location of Lourdes is not important  (other than as a storage location for miracle measuring equipment), I can only conclude by your reply that you are saying that all the people who have traveled to Lourdes to get a shot a miraculous healing had no actual need to go to Lourdes to get the miraculous healing they were seeking. Am I interpreting your posts correctly?
Yes.

Are there types of Higgs Bosons?
Does not equate.
Why? What is the difference between miracles and Higgs boson when it comes to having different types? Why one must have different types and not the other?
You are having the same trouble than jaimelhers. Thinking as miracle as something that it is not. The way I present miracle in my scientific method proof is the same way we present Higgs boson or gravity in their scientific method proof.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Graybeard on June 19, 2014, 01:47:09 PM
No, miracles don't work all the time. 
You spend a lot of time pointlessly speaking of the Higgs Boson, as if this gives your belief in magic some scientific credibility.

The difference lies in the Higgs boson existing in reality, and your god lacking all evidence.

The word "miracle" is used when those who investigate cannot find a reason. If they cannot find a reason, we atheists say,

"That is their ignorance and they should simply say, 'I do not know' but they do not say this. Instead they say that it is the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh. They say this without any proof at all when it could have been any other god or, more likely, a natural cause that they simply do not understand."

Again, and as always, "God did it!" is used blindly and without any connection or reason, proving that religion is the worship of pure ignorance.

“Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian.”
-- Diderot, c1762

The French says it better:
Égaré dans la forêt immense pendant la nuit, je n’ai plus qu’une petite lumière pour me conduire. Survient un inconnu qui me dit : "Mon ami, souffle la chandelle pour mieux trouver ton chemin". Cet inconnu est un théologien."

and that is as true then as it is now - real wisdom.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 19, 2014, 02:25:31 PM
You need to explain in what way Lourdes serves as a way to measure miracles.
It is where the equipment is.
There is no way you can honestly think that this would qualify as an explanation.  There is no way you can honestly think that you would not need to provide at least a high level description of what this equipment is.
What is high level description? I gave you the link in the post #203. If you need more information about one of these "instruments" please ask away. But I think they are very explicit.

Quote
Some of the measurements that apply to the Higgs boson are quantifiable properties like mass, charge, spin, and parity.  So I'm pretty sure they are not the same as the measurement units applicable to a 'miracle'.  You're random guess of a dimensionless number 'one' indicates that you are content to simply making sh*t up to support your views.  Very dishonest Lukvance.  Very.
Apparently I did not understand the question (hence the "i'm not sure it applies") With your example at hand I can give you more precisely the information you are seeking. No need to insult.
To the question "What are the measurement units of a 'higgs Boson'? you answer "Some of the measurements that apply to the Higgs boson are quantifiable properties"
To the question "What are the measurement units of a 'miracle'? I answer "some of the measurements that apply to the miracle are quantifiable properties like the time it took to happen, people it happen to, how was the element before the miracle (size, weight, lenght texture...etc), how long the miracle last"

Quote
Well, why not?  Seems like there is are a larger percentage of people seeking miracles in Lourdes compared to not Lourdes.  Is that incorrect?
That is, indeed, incorrect. Most of the miracle does not happen at Lourdes. They happen all around the world. Consequently most people that are seeking miracles are outside of Lourdes.

Quote
As you seem to have no clue what it is you're measuring in the first place, I'm pretty sure that you have no process for making a measurement.  Looking at reply #203 again, that still appears to be the case.
People at Lourdes are measuring if it's the hand of God or not. People in the LHC are measuring if it's the Higgs Boson or not.
There are rules (synonym of steps or processes) that one event must follow before being called Higgs Boson.
There are rules (synonym of steps or processes) that one event must follow before being called miracle. Those rules are described in the link I provided in reply #203.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 19, 2014, 02:45:01 PM
Can you please provide the mathematical formula?
I'm not sure that there is a mathematical formula for miracles but the only way to get one is to ask God and wait for his answer.

You can know that I exist because I have an influence on my environment, you can prove my existence by using the scientific method but I don't think you could have a mathematical formula for my actions in the world. You can have the process used to prove my existence (tools used, experiences made...etc)

Can you provide the mathematical formula for my actions in the world? is basically what you are asking (but about God). If you can, I might understand your question. Until then, for me, it doesn't make sense. Maybe I misunderstood?

Quote
That is what I asked for, why are you avoiding answering?
I am not avoiding. You did not ask for mathematical formula until now.

Quote
And how do you know it is Yahweh and not Satan or Baal Hadad or Isis?
There are test available to theists to know if something is from God or not. Theses test must be "passed" before an event is called "miracle" from the Vatican.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 19, 2014, 02:51:40 PM
Or, at least, that's a convenient way to dismiss it without reading (or possibly even understanding it).  That is the problem here; every time someone says anything that contradicts your belief that miracles somehow 'prove' God's existence, you ignore it or claim it's not relevant without explaining why.  And when they explain why it was actually relevant, you either disregard it the same way or attempt to copy it for your own beliefs without really understanding it.
This response has been deleted as it contradicts my instructions to Lukvance. Readers may assume that Lukvance has no argument to counter with.
An argument to counter what exactly in this case Graybeard?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 19, 2014, 04:14:43 PM
I understand that you want to think a miracle to be something that can fail.
It isn't about what I want to think, or what I don't want to think.  It's about whether you get to say, "well, all those times when nothing happened, they weren't miracles.  I'm only counting the times when science couldn't figure it out and a priest said that God told him it was a miracle."  That's the argument from ignorance fallacy and the argument from authority fallacy; two fallacies for the price of one.

Quote from: Lukvance
But the truth is that "failed miracles" are simply not miracles. Just like "failed Higgs Boson" are simply not Higgs bosons.
Nope, that isn't it at all.  There is no such thing as a 'failed' Higgs boson.  There can be a failure to find a Higgs boson, but it has specific characteristics which make identifiable by scientists.  This is not the case with the Lourdes 'miracles'.  There are no characteristics of a miracle which make it identifiable by scientists.  In fact, the whole point of the investigation process the Catholic church uses is to make sure that scientists can't identify it.

Quote from: Lukvance
Again you are counting the number of "non miracle"
Of course I'm counting them.  In science, you have to record the results of all the experiments you did, not just the times when you found what you wanted to find.  This is in large part to prevent [wiki]selection bias[/wiki], such as someone only counting the successes and discarding everything else.  The millions upon millions of cases where no miracle happened should not be disregarded, at least not if you want people to take you seriously.  What if there's elements to those cases that would have ended up being relevant?  As far as you and your church are concerned, those don't matter because they aren't miracles, but in science, they can potentially matter very much.

Quote from: Lukvance
it's like counting the number of "non Higgs Boson"
It isn't even the slightest bit like that.  The details of every experiment scientists did to try to find the Higgs boson were recorded, whether or not one was actually found.  That included all the particles that they did observe, because they couldn't be sure what, if any, of them would end up being relevant after all, or a worthwhile discovery in its own right.

Quote from: Lukvance
Here is my question, if I were to tell you that each and everyone of the little lines seen on the screen that are not the Higgs Boson are "failed Higgs Boson"  will the Higgs Boson be less existent?
All this question shows is that you don't understand science very well.  Every particle observed during the experiments to find the Higgs boson was potentially relevant and was not ignored.  And even finding the Higgs boson doesn't make them irrelevant.  If nothing else, they're further confirmation of previous experimental results, and potentially a lot more than that.

Yet, to you, the only thing that matters is finding the miracles.  Nothing else matters at all.  This would be bad enough if we were just talking about subatomic particles, but you're talking about human lives here; people who go to Lourdes and come away empty-handed, if not worse off than when they came.

Quote from: Lukvance
I understand the mistake you made.
Every time you say "I understand the mistake you made", you end up being wrong.  This is no exception.  How much longer do you intend to keep saying you understand when you clearly don't?

Quote from: Lukvance
It comes from the fact that you think a "failed miracle" is any experiment in detecting a miracle that has failed. Isn't that like you telling me that every "failed Higgs Boson" is a failed experiment in detecting the "Higgs Boson"? It doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense because that's not what I'm thinking in the first place.  I'm thinking about the fact that as far as you and your church are concerned, the only results that matter are the ones which, to you, indicate a miracle.  In an actual experiment, there are no failures - every experiment matters, and you don't disregard anything regardless of how trivial or failed it might seem.

The discovery of pen.icillin[1] came from one of those "failed experiments" you keep saying don't matter.[/i]  Alexander Fleming, the scientist who discovered it did so totally by mistake because he left a petri dish open overnight and found it contaminated by mold.  He investigated it and found that the mold was inhibiting the growth of bacteria in the petri dish.  If he had your attitude towards science, he would have chucked it in the trash because it was contaminated and spoiled for whatever experiment he was actually planning with it.

Are you maybe starting to understand why your approach to this is so flawed?

Quote from: Lukvance
Is the experiment in the LHC designed to catch the positives while discarding all the negatives?
No, it's designed to analyze all the data that comes out of the test.

Quote from: Lukvance
Do you have a control set up to test the proportion of "Higgs Boson" in some other place in the world?
Considering how expensive it was to build the LHC, probably not yet.  They had to make sure that it existed at all before worrying about other considerations.  There are plans in place to make even larger particle colliders elsewhere in the world than the LHC, and I'm sure someone will run the same experiments that found the Higgs boson once they're built, because that's how scientists are.

Quote from: Lukvance
What kind of experiment performed at Lourdes is not controlled? Isn't the only thing that scientists do at LHC is say whether there's a known explanation or not for that line on the screen?
Nothing at Lourdes is done in the kind of a controlled manner needed for science.  The process the Catholic church uses is nothing more than a weeding-out process; only the healings which have no known explanation are even put under consideration for being miracles.  And the final decision is made by a priest who 'consults' and 'prays', which is pretty much the antithesis of science since there's no way to reproduce the results.  If some other priest simultaneously did the consulting and praying, they might come up with a different answer.

And as for the scientists who actually did the work to find the Higgs boson, depicting their work as "reading a line on the screen" is deeply insulting.  For one thing, they had to formulate the experiments they ran in the LHC, and then they had to run them, which is very meticulous, exacting work, since it involves isolating variable after variable and tweaking the experiment slightly every time.  And then they had to interpret the results, which considering that they're dealing with, is way more than "reading a line on the screen".  It involves particles that decay within 10-22 seconds.  To put this in perspective, computers generally operate at 2-3 instructions every 10-9 seconds (basically, 2-3 billion instructions per second, depending on the processor), which we can't even perceive, yet the Higgs boson decays a trillion times faster than that.

Quote from: Lukvance
If I resume. Your counter argument is based on "non miracle". This make as much sense as a "non Higgs Boson" (meaning all the others fundamental particles)
No, my counter-argument is that you don't even bother to check any of the times when healings didn't happen, and you disregard any time when a healing has a scientific explanation (and that's just for starters - there's not much point in going into the other flaws if you don't understand why this one is so important).  That's an incredibly shoddy approach for something you're claiming is scientific.  To use a very crude analogy, it's about like a child making a 'pie' out of mud and then expecting it to compare with a dish cooked by a world-class chef.

Quote from: Lukvance
You say that "non miracle" are too many for miracle to even be considered.
Nope.  I'm saying that the process used by your church to confirm miracles doesn't pay any attention to anything that isn't a clear healing and dismisses any healings that appear to have scientific explanations.  This is a serious problem, especially since the resulting 'miraculous' healings are so few in number.  It means that your results are suspect, because most of them were discarded without even being considered and the majority by far of the ones that were examined were discarded for not being 'miraculous' enough, or rather, having an actual scientific explanation.  Can you explain why having a scientific explanation rules it out from being a miracle, or is this just another thing you take for granted?

Quote from: Lukvance
The other counter argument that you put forward was that the scientist just say it is not anything else than a miracle so miracles don't exist.
I didn't say this at all.  If I had to guess, this sounds like you misunderstood me saying "just because scientists don't have an explanation for something doesn't make that something into a miracle".  Note that this is a paraphrase, as I don't remember the exact wording I used.

Quote from: Lukvance
It makes as much sense as if you were saying that the scientist just say it is not anything else than a Higgs Boson so Higgs Boson don't exist.
Leaving aside the fact that the grammar you used makes it very difficult to parse what you said, it took the scientists a year of additional testing and analysis before they were able to confirm that the unknown boson they detected in 2012 matched enough of the predicted properties of the Higgs boson to actually be one.

Quote from: Lukvance
Finally you say that the experience does not have a control group when you know that these experiences are conducted regularly in the Vatican.
Do you know what a control group actually is?  When you're running experiments on human beings, or other things where you can't count on a predictable reactions, you have to run tests on some of them where they think that the something is happening to them even though it really isn't.  The usual example is when you're testing medicine, and you give one group the medicine and another group inactive pills (placebos) which look and taste like the medicine.  That way you can get a fairly good idea of which reactions are actually due to the medicine and which ones aren't.

Based on the source you've given, I don't think the Vatican could make use of a control group even if they actually had one, because there's no way for them to determine whether a person is actually getting a miraculous healing or not until well after it's actually happened (which as its own problems, as I've described before.
 1. the forum apparently hates this word
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 19, 2014, 04:32:30 PM
Of course there is a control group (in the case of the woman healing her hand the control group was other women that had their hand crushed and did not pray God to heal them)
As I suspected, you still don't understand the concept.  In a scientific experiment involving humans, you have one or more experimental groups who are actually being tested, and a control group to provide a baseline.  However, the control group cannot be aware of any differences between them and the experimental group(s), or else it spoils their usefulness as a control group.  Furthermore, you have to take the placebo effect into account - the expectation of some course of action having an effect which is then generated by the body.

In short, you cannot have an experimental group of people who prayed to YHWH (expecting it to make a difference) and a control group of people who did not pray to YHWH, because the latter group is not actually a control group (as nobody can actually control whether the prayers have an effect or not) and it disregards the placebo effect.

Quote from: Lukvance
and the results are statistically significant (meaning that there are more people instantly healed after praying God than people instantly healed after not praying God)
Oh, really?  Let's see the studies which actually show this, instead of just taking your word for it or a youtube video which claims that it's the case.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on June 19, 2014, 04:41:16 PM
What is high level description? I gave you the link in the post #203. If you need more information about one of these "instruments" please ask away. But I think they are very explicit.
They're not terribly explicit.  At no point do they ever describe a piece of equipment used in this miracle detection process.  They do not list a part number; they do not list any kind of description at all that would allow another sentient entity to point at a piece of equipment and make a determination of 'that is a piece of equipment that can be utilized to detect a miracle' vs. 'that is not a piece of equipment that can be utilized to detect a miracle'.

It's sort of like someone asking you what planet you live on, and you responding by saying 'a planet'.

Quote
Apparently I did not understand the question (hence the "i'm not sure it applies") With your example at hand I can give you more precisely the information you are seeking. No need to insult.
To the question "What are the measurement units of a 'higgs Boson'? you answer "Some of the measurements that apply to the Higgs boson are quantifiable properties"
To the question "What are the measurement units of a 'miracle'? I answer "some of the measurements that apply to the miracle are quantifiable properties like the time it took to happen, people it happen to, how was the element before the miracle (size, weight, lenght texture...etc), how long the miracle last"
Then you shouldn't have ventured an arbitrary guess like 'one'.  You really shouldn't have.

So how do they measure the time it took for a 'miracle' to happen?  How do they know that the miracle process 'started' vs. the miracle process 'not started yet'?

And what element are you referring to exactly?

Quote
That is, indeed, incorrect. Most of the miracle does not happen at Lourdes. They happen all around the world. Consequently most people that are seeking miracles are outside of Lourdes.
Okay.

Quote
People at Lourdes are measuring if it's the hand of God or not. People in the LHC are measuring if it's the Higgs Boson or not.
There are rules (synonym of steps or processes) that one event must follow before being called Higgs Boson.
There are rules (synonym of steps or processes) that one event must follow before being called miracle. Those rules are described in the link I provided in reply #203.
Those rules you keep referring to in reply #203 are insufficient.  jaimehlers has done a much better job than I ever could of explaining why that is the case.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 19, 2014, 05:20:01 PM
my counter-argument is that you don't even bother to check any of the times when healings didn't happen, and you disregard any time when a healing has a scientific explanation (and that's just for starters - there's not much point in going into the other flaws if you don't understand why this one is so important).  That's an incredibly shoddy approach for something you're claiming is scientific.  To use a very crude analogy, it's about like a child making a 'pie' out of mud and then expecting it to compare with a dish cooked by a world-class chef.
Alright I have your counter argument properly stated. Let me ask you something are there records of events that were not miraculous? Do you bother to check the times in the LHC that the "collision" never occurred (you did not started the LHC)? Are there records of times when the experience took place without the Boson Showing up? are there records of the events even if he was not miraculous?
We do not "bother to check any of the times when healings didn't happen"
We do not "bother to check any of the times when the experience didn't start"
We do not disregard any time when an event has a scientific explanation. We catalog it and study it later.
We do not disregard any time when a test didn't show the Higgs Boson. We catalog it ans study it later.

Quote
Can you explain why having a scientific explanation rules it out from being a miracle, or is this just another thing you take for granted?
I can explain. When we don't find the Higgs Boson isn't that because all the other lines showing on the screen has already a scientific explanation?
Let's say scientific A find that line X is the Higgs Boson.
Scientific B comes and say no, no, that is not it, there is another scientific explanation for that line X.
Scientific C confirm the findings of scientific B.
Line X is concluded to not be the Higgs Boson, having a scientific explanation rules it out from being a Higgs Boson
Now let's scientific A find that this event was miraculous.
Scientific B comes and say no no that is not it, there is another scientific explanation for that event.
Scientific C confirm the findings of scientific B.
The event is concluded to not be a miracle, "having a scientific explanation rules it out from being a miracle"

Quote
Do you know what a control group actually is?  When you're running experiments on human beings, or other things where you can't count on a predictable reactions, you have to run tests on some of them where they think that the something is happening to them even though it really isn't.  The usual example is when you're testing medicine, and you give one group the medicine and another group inactive pills (placebos) which look and taste like the medicine.  That way you can get a fairly good idea of which reactions are actually due to the medicine and which ones aren't.
What was the control group in the case of the Higgs boson?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Defiance on June 19, 2014, 05:28:44 PM
Funny.

Makes an analogy between miracles and Higgs Boson


Doesn't even know what it's control group was.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 19, 2014, 05:33:17 PM
What is high level description? I gave you the link in the post #203. If you need more information about one of these "instruments" please ask away. But I think they are very explicit.
They're not terribly explicit.  At no point do they ever describe a piece of equipment used in this miracle detection process.  They do not list a part number; they do not list any kind of description at all that would allow another sentient entity to point at a piece of equipment and make a determination of 'that is a piece of equipment that can be utilized to detect a miracle' vs. 'that is not a piece of equipment that can be utilized to detect a miracle'.

It's sort of like someone asking you what planet you live on, and you responding by saying 'a planet'.
Oh I see. Doctors use many equipment to learn the source of a disease. (microscopes, x-rays...etc) are you talking about those equipment. There is not one equipment but a multitude that are used to determine if the event is a miracle. They even use chaplets, holly water, tuniques, shoes... I mean every element involved in the finding is a "tool" that is used to find out if it's a miracle or not. Granted, the scientific tools as we know it stops when it comes to the Bishop to decide if it's from God or not but some other tools, spiritual ones, take place. Sometime the event is not granted the miracle status even if there is no other scientific explanation for it. That is why I include the bishop/prayer and his peers in the discovering of the action of God on earth.

Quote
So how do they measure the time it took for a 'miracle' to happen?  How do they know that the miracle process 'started' vs. the miracle process 'not started yet'?
For example the person who couldn't move her hand could move it after the miracle happened. The cure was "instantaneous". They use a "clock" to measure the time.
The hand cannot move "the process not started yet"
The hand can move "the process started"

Quote
And what element are you referring to exactly?
For example the hand of the woman. It's the element that God "touched" and healed and that is proof of his action in this world. Proving by the same act, that he exist outside our mind :)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 19, 2014, 05:42:34 PM
What is the mass, spin and parity of a "not higgs particle"???
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 19, 2014, 05:46:11 PM
How do you establish a moving hand and gods presence. you actually need to detect the presence of god. god simultaneously with the presence of god.

there is no link between a moving hand and god without detection of god anymore than a falling rock and an invisible pink unicorn .
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 19, 2014, 07:12:36 PM
Alright I have your counter argument properly stated. Let me ask you something are there records of events that were not miraculous?
Given that you and your church apparently have no interest in investigating the millions of people who go to Lourdes and don't have a miracle happen to them, I figure there are not.

Quote from: Lukvance
Do you bother to check the times in the LHC that the "collision" never occurred (you did not started the LHC)? Are there records of times when the experience experiment took place without the Boson Showing up?
I don't have access to their records, but I'm quite sure that they have them, because that's how scientists work.  I've done scientific experiments as well as statistical analysis, and so I know from firsthand experience just how important it is to keep full and complete records, because you never know if something that seems trivial might actually be meaningful; you also need large sample sets - the larger the better - to analyze, and you need to control the variables, so that you have as little variance as you can manage.

Quote from: Lukvance
are there records of the events even if he was not miraculous?
And you're still trying to conflate the scientific investigation which resulted in finding the Higgs boson and the Catholic church's ruling out of scientific explanations for events that it could then claim were miraculous.  Or at least I assume that's the case; if you're trying to talk about the Higgs boson being miraculous, then this is nonsense.

I modified the order of the following posts slightly, because you keep switching off which you're talking about.

Quote from: Lukvance
We do not "bother to check any of the times when healings didn't happen"
We do not disregard any time when a test didn't show the Higgs Boson. We catalog it ans study it later.
Have you ever participated in an actual investigation relating to these healings?

Quote from: Lukvance
We do not "bother to check any of the times when the experience experiment didn't start"
We do not disregard any time when an event has a scientific explanation. We catalog it and study it later.
Have you ever participated in running an actual scientific experiment?

Quote from: Lukvance
I can explain. When we don't find the Higgs Boson isn't that because all the other lines showing on the screen has already a scientific explanation?
Stop with this inane attempt to depict the results of a scientific experiment as "lines on a screen".  Seriously, stop.  You don't know what you're talking about even well enough to know just how far off you are.

Quote from: Lukvance
Let's say scientific A find that line X is the Higgs Boson.
Scientific B comes and say no, no, that is not it, there is another scientific explanation for that line X.
Scientific C confirm the findings of scientific B.
Line X is concluded to not be the Higgs Boson, having a scientific explanation rules it out from being a Higgs Boson
This.  Is.  Not.  How.  Science.  Works.  You seriously need to stop trying to cast science as this sort of inane parody so you can justify your claims of miracles being "scientifically investigated".  As if any reputable scientist anywhere would simply claim that a line of data was a Higgs boson or anything else without thoroughly investigating it first!

In 2012, when the two separate research teams each independently found an unknown boson, they were very careful not to simply claim that it was a Higgs boson, because they didn't have anywhere near enough data to satisfy their own standard of evidence.  They had to accumulate a lot more data before they felt comfortable with stating that it was a Higgs boson.  At that point, other scientists got in on the act and checked their data.  Since they presumably found no mistakes in it (as the team leaders were awarded the Nobel Prize that year), it's a fairly safe bet that they did find the Higgs boson, although they'll need to do more tests to firm up the data.

Quote from: Lukvance
Now let's scientific A find that this event was miraculous.
Scientific B comes and say no no that is not it, there is another scientific explanation for that event.
Scientific C confirm the findings of scientific B.
The event is concluded to not be a miracle, "having a scientific explanation rules it out from being a miracle"
This is so bad that it's not even funny.  Do you simply not get the concept that you need a scientific explanation of what a miracle is before you can investigate something in order to see if it is a miracle?  Trying to claim that something without a known scientific explanation might be a miracle is just a fancy way of saying that things we don't understand might be miracles.  It's an [wiki]argument from ignorance[/wiki], and repeating it will not change that.

Quote from: Lukvance
What was the control group in the case of the Higgs boson?
As elementary particles never react differently to the same stimuli, there is no need for a control group.  Control groups are only necessary in situations where scientists cannot control all the variables, such as in experiments involving human beings.  This is because human beings can trick themselves (or be tricked) into reacting differently to the same thing.  For example, if you tell someone that a certain pill is bitter, and tell someone else that the same pill is sweet, they will react differently to it even though the pill itself has no taste.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 20, 2014, 07:19:59 AM
If the location of Lourdes is not important  (other than as a storage location for miracle measuring equipment), I can only conclude by your reply that you are saying that all the people who have traveled to Lourdes to get a shot a miraculous healing had no actual need to go to Lourdes to get the miraculous healing they were seeking. Am I interpreting your posts correctly?
Yes.

Are there types of Higgs Bosons?
Does not equate.
Why? What is the difference between miracles and Higgs boson when it comes to having different types? Why one must have different types and not the other?
You are having the same trouble than jaimelhers. Thinking as miracle as something that it is not. The way I present miracle in my scientific method proof is the same way we present Higgs boson or gravity in their scientific method proof.

You STILL haven't answered my question.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 20, 2014, 07:37:37 AM
Luk actually believes his miracle science is somehow the same level of science as elementary particles .


i feel guilty laughing at someone so ignorant.

do you guys actually think luk even has an arguable position? y'all just doing this for entertainment right?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 20, 2014, 07:53:21 AM
^I'm trying to correct the gaps in his understanding of science.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Airyaman on June 20, 2014, 07:55:02 AM
^I'm trying to correct the gaps in his understanding of science.

Like filling up a bucket with the bottom missing, I'd say.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: One Above All on June 20, 2014, 07:57:04 AM
^I'm trying to correct the gaps in his understanding of science.

Like filling up a bucket with the bottom missing, I'd say.

Or trying to fill up a bucket with no bucket.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on June 20, 2014, 08:19:13 AM
Oh I see. Doctors use many equipment to learn the source of a disease. (microscopes, x-rays...etc) are you talking about those equipment. There is not one equipment but a multitude that are used to determine if the event is a miracle. They even use chaplets, holly water, tuniques, shoes... I mean every element involved in the finding is a "tool" that is used to find out if it's a miracle or not. Granted, the scientific tools as we know it stops when it comes to the Bishop to decide if it's from God or not but some other tools, spiritual ones, take place. Sometime the event is not granted the miracle status even if there is no other scientific explanation for it. That is why I include the bishop/prayer and his peers in the discovering of the action of God on earth.
Typically if someone is going to re-run an experiment, they will want to have, ideally, an exact list of the equipment used - manufacturers, part number, standards compliance traceability, time of purchase, a record of any service that has been done to the equipment, etc.

Obviously it would be silly to ask you for such detail - I would not expect you to have access to that kind of information easily.  But some degree of detail would be nice - you imply that there is a medical diagnostics facility there, which is a great start.  That's at least kind of descriptive and I can start to envision how some of this testing goes.

But then I get stuck with the use of things like holy water, prayer...basically, you kind of just hand waved and said 'spiritual tools'.  How is prayer used to measure the miracle?  Is there a specific expected response from a patient with an immobile hand due to recitation of the Hail Mary over the Glory Be or something?

Try to get as specific as you can get.

Quote
For example the person who couldn't move her hand could move it after the miracle happened. The cure was "instantaneous". They use a "clock" to measure the time.
When you say cure, did you mean the observation of the disease disappearing?  What kind of a clock?  When was it last calibrated?

In what way were other possible explanations for the restoration of movement of the hand restored?

Quote
The hand cannot move "the process not started yet"
The hand can move "the process started"
What other ways can a hand 'not move'?  Due to muscle paralysis?  Ingesting of a toxic chemical?  Patient not desiring to move his/her hand?

How is movement defined?  Is shaking with 10 micrometer amplitude considered 'not moving' or 'moving'?  Were these observations done in the same room?  At the same time?  Maybe same time of day?  How many observers were there?  Did they all agree?  If they disagreed, what was the source of that discrepancy?  Can that discrepancy be accounted for?

Was this patient's diet controlled throughout this whole process?  What environments was this patient exposed to during the time of the experiment?

Have there been other, similar patients that have been observed in a similar way, and did they have the same outcome?

Quote
For example the hand of the woman. It's the element that God "touched" and healed and that is proof of his action in this world. Proving by the same act, that he exist outside our mind :)
How does one identify that it is indeed god interacting with the element, and not any other mystical, powerful, unnatural entity, or some mundane, natural entity?

And how is that different from claiming that a dead baby is the element that god 'touched' and murdered being proof of his action in the world?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 20, 2014, 11:11:26 AM
jaimehlers I know you addressed all my answers but I am having trouble finding what is your counter argument this time. Could you simplify it? I will use your last reply post as arguments supporting this counter argument. Meanwhile let me answer your questions :
Quote
Have you ever participated in an actual investigation relating to these healings? [...] Have you ever participated in running an actual scientific experiment?
My answer to both is "no but I have testimonies"

Quote
Do you simply not get the concept that you need a scientific explanation of what a miracle is before you can investigate something in order to see if it is a miracle?
I understand that we nee a theory before investigating if that theory is true.
The theory for gravity was "It is something to do with relative masses."
The theory for miraculous event was "It is something to do with God."
There are books written on the theory of gravity.
There are books written on the theory of miracles.
In conclusion there is as much scientific explanation of what a miracle is than there is scientific explanation of what gravity is.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 20, 2014, 11:12:14 AM
You STILL haven't answered my question.
I'm sorry I am having trouble finding it. Can you please single it out?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on June 20, 2014, 11:31:20 AM
The theory for gravity was "It is something to do with relative masses."

Can I recommend that you do a bit of independent study on this gravity thing?  You may wish to start at Wikipedia for the sake of convenience, hopefully drilling down to more thorough sources thereafter.  Start here:

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

Saying "it is something to do with relative masses" is an exceptionally poor way to view gravity.  The most glaring problem with that statement is that the word 'something' actually represents a whole slew of objectively verifiable predictions.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 20, 2014, 12:09:19 PM
How is prayer used to measure the miracle?  Is there a specific expected response from a patient with an immobile hand due to recitation of the Hail Mary over the Glory Be or something?
Try to get as specific as you can get.
In prayer you have the answer of your question from God. If you ask him "was it your doing?" you will get the answer. Most people like you believe that it is only one person who prays before giving the characteristic of miracle to an event when in fact there are many. It doesn't matter how you pray God, as long as most prayers have the same answer.
The miracle must not have "evil" consequences. For example : A healed hand must not commit murder right after if it wants to be recognize as a miracle.

Quote
When you say cure, did you mean the observation of the disease disappearing?  What kind of a clock?  When was it last calibrated? In what way were other possible explanations for the restoration of movement of the hand restored?
Yes the disease disappear. When I said clock I meant time. If the disease takes too much time to disappear it might not be a miracle. The hand could have been restored by Vodou or things of that order, in this case there are no miracles.

Quote
What other ways can a hand 'not move'? Due to muscle paralysis?  Ingesting of a toxic chemical?  Patient not desiring to move his/her hand?
  Yes. In this example : "she was left with an ulnar type of paralysis. She could not use the last two fingers of her right hand, which were held in typical palmar flexion."

Quote
How is movement defined?  Is shaking with 10 micrometer amplitude considered 'not moving' or 'moving'?
I don't know I'm not a doctor.
Quote
Were these observations done in the same room?  At the same time?  Maybe same time of day?  How many observers were there?  Did they all agree?  If they disagreed, what was the source of that discrepancy?  Can that discrepancy be accounted for? Was this patient's diet controlled throughout this whole process?  What environments was this patient exposed to during the time of the experiment?
All of that information is in the medical files of the desired miracle. But I know for a fact that miracles takes time and many people, so not only one observer and not only one room or one day.
Quote
Have there been other, similar patients that have been observed in a similar way, and did they have the same outcome?[/b]
This information is in the files of the desired miracle. I believe that 2 miracles can be similar. If there was another case of healing similar than the event studied, it might not be considered as a miracle.

Quote
How does one identify that it is indeed god interacting with the element, and not any other mystical, powerful, unnatural entity, or some mundane, natural entity?
It's in prayer. The event is presented to the closest priest[1] who then contact his peers and together they pray to identify that it is indeed god interacting with the element, and not any other mystical, powerful, unnatural entity.

Quote
And how is that different from claiming that a dead baby is the element that god 'touched' and murdered being proof of his action in the world?
Do you mean that the bey died in an extraordinary way? I think it would depend on that "dead baby" case you are talking about.
But let's say it's a miscarriage. Then it's a miscarriage, not a miracle.
 1. http://en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles/recognition-of-a-miracle (http://en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles/recognition-of-a-miracle)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 20, 2014, 12:10:50 PM
http://en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles/danila-castelli
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 20, 2014, 12:11:40 PM
Saying "it is something to do with relative masses" is an exceptionally poor way to view gravity.  The most glaring problem with that statement is that the word 'something' actually represents a whole slew of objectively verifiable predictions.
Take it up with Graybeard :
Construct hypothesis: It is something to do with relative masses.
This would explain planetary motion and why Australians do not fall off the earth!
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: epidemic on June 20, 2014, 12:19:34 PM
Lukvance,

I believe I read somewhere that there has been alot of testing and experimentation with gravity, for instance an asteroid of x mass exerts a predictable amout of attraction. 

I can not think of any predictions that have been able to be tested with respect to god with anything more than random results. 

Theory god can perform miracles if one says the magic words,  Test say the magic words, God please heal my baby who has a horrible disease parents A,B,C,D,E,F,G ... CA,CB,CC... through XY all watch their kids die horrible deaths, but parent XZ sees his kid improve a little and attributes it to a miracle.

Watching for gods miracles is actually almost always measured after the fact that a supposed miracle happened.  It ignores the tremendous number (Vast majority)of failures and is measured on the rare success. It is like making a video of me throwing pebbles at a beer bottle 90 feet away and over a period of years splicing together all the lucky shots that made it into the neck of the bottle and showing it to someone.  They would be amazed that anyone could nail that bottle over and over at such a great distance.  But when you show them the un-edited version you can see it was nothing more than dumb random luck.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 20, 2014, 12:41:36 PM
Lukvance,
I believe I read somewhere that there has been alot of testing and experimentation with gravity, for instance an asteroid of x mass exerts a predictable amout of attraction. 
I can not think of any predictions that have been able to be tested with respect to god with anything more than random results.
 
I can not think of any predictions that have been able to be tested with respect to my actions with anything more than random results. 
For example : Will I turn left or right?

Quote
 
Theory god can perform miracles if one says the magic words,  Test say the magic words, God please heal my baby who has a horrible disease parents A,B,C,D,E,F,G ... CA,CB,CC... through XY all watch their kids die horrible deaths, but parent XZ sees his kid improve a little and attributes it to a miracle.
Watching for gods miracles is actually almost always measured after the fact that a supposed miracle happened.  It ignores the tremendous number (Vast majority)of failures and is measured on the rare success. It is like making a video of me throwing pebbles at a beer bottle 90 feet away and over a period of years splicing together all the lucky shots that made it into the neck of the bottle and showing it to someone.  They would be amazed that anyone could nail that bottle over and over at such a great distance.  But when you show them the un-edited version you can see it was nothing more than dumb random luck.
So your counter argument is that God doesn't exist because... random luck?
You cannot know what I will chose to do tomorrow, it is unpredictable. Why would you know what God will do tomorrow?
"Theory god can perform miracles if one says the magic words" I believe there are mistakes here. It's like you have not been reading the posts where I explain how Miracles are the actions of God, they are not God "performing" and they don't need "magic words" to happen.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: epidemic on June 20, 2014, 12:47:35 PM
Lukvance,
I believe I read somewhere that there has been alot of testing and experimentation with gravity, for instance an asteroid of x mass exerts a predictable amout of attraction. 
I can not think of any predictions that have been able to be tested with respect to god with anything more than random results.
 
I can not think of any predictions that have been able to be tested with respect to my actions with anything more than random results. 
For example : Will I turn left or right?
Right

Quote
 
Theory god can perform miracles if one says the magic words,  Test say the magic words, God please heal my baby who has a horrible disease parents A,B,C,D,E,F,G ... CA,CB,CC... through XY all watch their kids die horrible deaths, but parent XZ sees his kid improve a little and attributes it to a miracle.
Watching for gods miracles is actually almost always measured after the fact that a supposed miracle happened.  It ignores the tremendous number (Vast majority)of failures and is measured on the rare success. It is like making a video of me throwing pebbles at a beer bottle 90 feet away and over a period of years splicing together all the lucky shots that made it into the neck of the bottle and showing it to someone.  They would be amazed that anyone could nail that bottle over and over at such a great distance.  But when you show them the un-edited version you can see it was nothing more than dumb random luck.
So your counter argument is that God doesn't exist because... random luck?[/quote]
No

Quote
You cannot know what I will chose to do tomorrow, it is unpredictable. Why would you know what God will do tomorrow?
"Theory god can perform miracles if one says the magic words" I believe there are mistakes here. It's like you have not been reading the posts where I explain how Miracles are the actions of God, they are not God "performing" and they don't need "magic words" to happen.

No
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 20, 2014, 01:19:44 PM
My answer to both is "no but I have testimonies"
It doesn't sound like you understand them very well at all.  Perhaps that should be your first order of business - get a better understanding of the 'testimonies' that you're referring to.

Quote from: jaimehlers
Do you simply not get the concept that you need a scientific explanation of what a miracle is before you can investigate something in order to see if it is a miracle?
Quote from: Lukvance
I understand that we nee a theory before investigating if that theory is true.
I don't really think you do understand that at this point, explanation below.

Quote from: Lukvance
The theory for gravity was "It is something to do with relative masses."
This is not a theory.  A theory must be specific so that it can be tested and falsified.  I think the original theory for gravity was along the lines of "two masses will attract each other based on how much mass they have and how far apart they are".  This is specific, so it can be tested, and since it can be tested, it can be falsified.

Quote from: Lukvance
The theory for miraculous event was "It is something to do with God."
This is not a theory.  How do we test "something to do with God"?  How do we tell if God is actually doing anything?  How do we tell if what God did had an effect?  There's nothing to get a hold of, nothing to actually test, no way to falsify it.

Quote from: Lukvance
There are books written on the theory of gravity.
There are books written on the theory of miracles.
Since there is no "theory of miracles", how can there be books written on it?  What you mean is that there's books written about miracles, but there's no scientific explanation for them, so there's no theory to work with.

Quote from: Lukvance
In conclusion there is as much scientific explanation of what a miracle is than there is scientific explanation of what gravity is.
Incorrect; there is no scientific explanation of a miracle, because science is concerned with how something happens (note that this is simplified).  For example, the scientific explanation for why blood clots is that small cells called platelets anchor themselves to tissues and to other platelets, preventing red blood cells from flowing past them.  It's an explanation for how it happens.  Your statements about miracles are not explanations, because there is no 'how' involved.  You simply say that God does it, and make no effort to explain how the miracle actually happens - how God actually performs it.

You need to explain how the miracle goes from God to the person being healed, and how it causes the person to be healed.  And you need to have evidence which supports the explanation.  And that's a bare minimum to get anywhere.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 20, 2014, 01:46:29 PM
You STILL haven't answered my question.
I'm sorry I am having trouble finding it. Can you please single it out?

No, I'm just reporting you to the mods when I notice you dodging a question. You can ether follow the rules you agreed to when you signed up or deal with the consequences - unlike with your idea of a deity, these consequences WILL eventually catch up with you.

I wish I could say that it's been fun, but unlike you, I actually value honesty. Nice job representing Catholicism.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 20, 2014, 02:08:41 PM
lukvance, per your spite smite: "It wasn't an important question then   "

You twisted yourself in knots to avoid answering the question I repeated for you at least three times and now you are claiming that you don't know what question I'm referring to and smiting me for not spelling it out for you yet again.

Do you honestly not recognize how petty and childish you look? 
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 20, 2014, 02:08:59 PM
You need to explain how the miracle goes from God to the person being healed, and how it causes the person to be healed.  And you need to have evidence which supports the explanation.  And that's a bare minimum to get anywhere.
Explain how the miracle goes from God to the person being healed is like saying explain how god's affect the person being healed. And he affect her by curing her, each miracle is different. No more handicap. I don't understand what you are missing here.
You see a tree blocking the road
You ask me to push the tree away and close your eyes
I push the tree away
You don't see the tree blocking the road anymore. Is there a need for an explanation on how I affected the tree? I could have used another car or my hands but how does it matter? The manner I used doesn't make me less real.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 20, 2014, 02:11:05 PM
Do you honestly not recognize how petty and childish you look?
No.
Insulting me won't help the discussion to move on.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Astreja on June 20, 2014, 02:36:53 PM
In this example : "she was left with an ulnar type of paralysis. She could not use the last two fingers of her right hand, which were held in typical palmar flexion."

If fingers 4 and 5 are involved, it is indeed the ulnar nerve ... which can be irritated or damaged as it passes over the elbow joint.

If the fingers are in flexion, it might be spasticity due to disuse.

Anything that relieves the entrapment of the nerve at the elbow could cause spontaneous recovery; in fact, ulnar nerve transposition is an example of surgery that can relieve this.  Keeping the elbow less bent, and/or wearing something to keep the arm straight at night, can relieve milder cases of ulnar nerve problems.

Finally, if the injury is of fairly recent origin, peripheral nerves can regrow.  There are also various electrodiagnostic tests that can be done to find out what's happening with the nerves and muscles.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 20, 2014, 03:02:21 PM
You need to explain how the miracle goes from God to the person being healed, and how it causes the person to be healed.  And you need to have evidence which supports the explanation.  And that's a bare minimum to get anywhere.

Explain how the miracle goes from God to the person being healed is like saying explain how god's affect the person being healed. And he affect her by curing her, each miracle is different.
Therefore, since you cannot explain how it happens, you have no scientific explanation and thus no hypothesis (never mind a theory). 

Quote from: Lukvance
No more handicap. I don't understand what you are missing here.
I am not missing anything.  I understand what you're trying to do, but it isn't science, and you can't make it science as long as you're content to just say "God causes miracles".

Quote from: Lukvance
You see a tree blocking the road
You ask me to push the tree away and close your eyes
I push the tree away
You don't see the tree blocking the road anymore.
This is a bad analogy; allow me to correct it.

I see a tree blocking the road.  I try to move it and can't; the tree is too big and heavy for me to move even using my car, so I have to move on.  Later, I tell you about the tree blocking the road, and you tell me that you'll pray to God for the tree to be removed.  Later on, I go back, and the tree is off to the side of the road, so cars can get through.  I don't see any tire tracks or drag marks indicating that someone came along and moved it.  Should I simply assume that your prayer worked and God moved the tree?  That's what you're telling me to do; that because I can't explain it, and because you prayed to God, the "scientific explanation" is that God moved the tree.

The thing is, you're just taking it on faith that God answered your prayer; you don't actually know if he moved it or not.  You and I are both ignorant of what moved the tree and how it was moved.  I, however, am not willing to accept that God did it simply because of the coincidence that you happened to pray beforehand.

Quote from: Lukvance
Is there a need for an explanation on how I affected the tree? I could have used another car or my hands but how does it matter? The manner I used doesn't make me less real.
Actually, that's the point, I do need the explanation.  It isn't enough for you to just say that you moved the tree on your own because I couldn't see what actually moved the tree.  I am not willing to remain ignorant of what actually happened simply because you think it's enough to just tell me that you did it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 20, 2014, 10:43:37 PM
Lukvance, do you understand that you cannot say with certainty that your god moved the tree?

Yes, the tree was moved after you prayed, but that is all you can say about it. You do not have any evidence connecting the tree moving and your prayer.  There could be a different way for that tree to get moved that are not related to prayer and not supernatural. For example, a helicopter could have lifted the tree out. Someone else could have prayed to a different god to move the tree. How do you know it was not their god who did it?

Even if the tree was moved magically or supernaturally, with no evidence showing who did it and how, it could have been Satan trying to fool you. Or Shango. Or Thor. Or some shy god nobody has heard of. Or maybe it was aliens using a tree lifting ray.

You cannot conclude that it was your god who moved the tree without any evidence that shows that it had to be your god, and only your god. You have no way to rule out all the other possibilities. You jump to the conclusion that it was your god, but you have no explanation for doing that.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 21, 2014, 07:58:04 AM
You cannot conclude that it was your god who moved the tree without any evidence that shows that it had to be your god, and only your god. You have no way to rule out all the other possibilities. You jump to the conclusion that it was your god, but you have no explanation for doing that.
Unfortunately, no.  What he'll say is that a high-ranking priest in the Catholic church's hierarchy consulted and prayed in order to determine if it was a miracle from God or if Satan did it instead, and if the priest says that God did it after that, well, that's the end of the story as far as Lukvance is concerned.

Never mind that, first off, it's only one priest asking to begin with, second, there's no way to tell if they're actually getting an answer from God as opposed to their own subconscious, third, it assumes that anything unexplained was caused by the supernatural even though things in the past were unexplained before we figured them out with science, and other things on top of those.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 21, 2014, 10:29:08 AM
Do you honestly not recognize how petty and childish you look?
No.

I rest my case.

Quote
Insulting me

I haven't even remotely begun to insulted you.

Quote
won't help the discussion to move on.

Nor will your repeated dodging of my clear and direct question. It's a familiar tactic here, we see theist pull this silly stunt all the time.

Feel free to continue smiting me, that does nothing to change the fact that you STILL haven't addressed my question.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on June 21, 2014, 12:04:04 PM
You need to explain how the miracle goes from God to the person being healed, and how it causes the person to be healed.  And you need to have evidence which supports the explanation.  And that's a bare minimum to get anywhere.
Explain how the miracle goes from God to the person being healed is like saying explain how god's affect the person being healed. And he affect her by curing her, each miracle is different. No more handicap. I don't understand what you are missing here.
You see a tree blocking the road
You ask me to push the tree away and close your eyes
I push the tree away
You don't see the tree blocking the road anymore. Is there a need for an explanation on how I affected the tree? I could have used another car or my hands but how does it matter? The manner I used doesn't make me less real.

Except this is a false analogy because in your scenario there is a "YOU" that is demonstrable. We can present youand ask questions, ask for a demonstration, and we have lots of examples of people moving trees. We do not have any examples of an alleged "god" doing anything that can be demonstrated in the same fashion. As others have noted there could be MANY explanations for why a tree was moved when other people were not around. An appeal to magic explains nothing. It is just a placeholder for your ignorance. So this comparison fails. What you are essentially always falling back on is, "God did it because I say so." Sorry, that isn't sufficient. Are you expecting everyone to just take your word for it, like you did with those who got you to believe your theology in the first place? Since you have no reliable method for separating an alleged "miracle" from a natural occurring event (a non-miracle) then your argument is invalid and should be corrected.

I've been away for a month and still you are arguing irrationally. Go figure.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on June 21, 2014, 12:46:12 PM
I've been away for a month and still you are arguing irrationally. Go figure.

This is nothing. I'm disappointed that you didn't get to read the two weeks worth of illogical hysterics that got lost when the site went down earlier this week. You'd have had a blast shredding the nonsense.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 22, 2014, 11:43:49 PM
Actually, that's the point, I do need the explanation.  It isn't enough for you to just say that you moved the tree on your own because I couldn't see what actually moved the tree.  I am not willing to remain ignorant of what actually happened simply because you think it's enough to just tell me that you did it.
So, are you saying that not knowing how I moved the tree makes me nonexistent? Because that is the question asked here and answered by miracle, the existence of God.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 22, 2014, 11:45:21 PM
Lukvance, do you understand that you cannot say with certainty that your god moved the tree?

Yes, the tree was moved after you prayed, but that is all you can say about it. You do not have any evidence connecting the tree moving and your prayer.  There could be a different way for that tree to get moved that are not related to prayer and not supernatural. For example, a helicopter could have lifted the tree out. Someone else could have prayed to a different god to move the tree. How do you know it was not their god who did it?

Even if the tree was moved magically or supernaturally, with no evidence showing who did it and how, it could have been Satan trying to fool you. Or Shango. Or Thor. Or some shy god nobody has heard of. Or maybe it was aliens using a tree lifting ray.

You cannot conclude that it was your god who moved the tree without any evidence that shows that it had to be your god, and only your god. You have no way to rule out all the other possibilities. You jump to the conclusion that it was your god, but you have no explanation for doing that.
I agree with you. I didn't talk about God moving the tree. It was someone else's idea. So ask him, not me.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 22, 2014, 11:48:55 PM
I've been away for a month and still you are arguing irrationally. Go figure.
That is not my argument. I'm arguing my existence, not the fact that the tree was pushed naturally or not.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 23, 2014, 12:19:15 AM
So, are you saying that not knowing how I moved the tree makes me nonexistent? Because that is the question asked here and answered by miracle, the existence of God.
How typical of you to completely miss the point, as usual.

First, if you actually did move the tree, I want to know how.  Not because it will make the slightest bit of difference as to whether you exist (because I have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that you exist - your presence in front of me, that I can confirm with my senses), but because I'm not willing to accept your claim that you moved it without additional evidence.  Now, if you had a truck parked nearby, and I saw tire tracks in the road that showed a vehicle pushing the tree out of the way, I would consider that sufficient evidence to substantiate your claim.  But if you're just standing there smiling, and there's a tree by the side of the road which you claimed to have moved, I'm going to expect you to show me how you moved it rather than just assuming you have magic superpowers that allow you to.  And if you refuse, I'm going to not believe that you actually did move it.  This isn't a book or a play, where you can expect me to suspend my disbelief.  This is reality, where if you claim to be able to do something, someone is eventually going to expect you to follow through with it.

Second, and much more important, we are not talking about a human being physically moving a tree.  We are talking about some immaterial being presumably doing things to physical matter without leaving the slightest sign behind it to show that it did.  You cannot simply say, "God healed that woman's hand" simply because her hand healed.  You have to show that God exists in the first place - because it could simply be some freak coincidence of factors that caused her hand to heal - and then you have to show how God performed the healing.  If you can't, then you're arguing from ignorance (basically, you don't know how it happened, therefore God), and there's no reason whatsoever to accept what you say, even if you have a million people (or a billion) who agree that your god did it without knowing how.  Because that's an argument from popularity (if lots of people believe, it must be true).

If you have a million sick and injured people all going to Lourdes every year, even if there is only a one in a million chance that they would have healed due to natural causes during the time they were present, that still means you have a pretty good chance that one of them will heal while they're there.  That's why I don't accept your claim that your god is doing the healings; when you consider the number of people who go there hoping against hope that they'll be healed, it stands to reason that, occasionally, one of them will get healed due to something that seems miraculous.  But that doesn't mean that it's supernatural, even with the procedures the Catholic Church has set up.  The most they can say is that we don't know how they healed.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 23, 2014, 12:18:52 PM
Lukvance, do you understand that you cannot say with certainty that your god moved the tree?

Yes, the tree was moved after you prayed, but that is all you can say about it. You do not have any evidence connecting the tree moving and your prayer.  There could be a different way for that tree to get moved that are not related to prayer and not supernatural. For example, a helicopter could have lifted the tree out. Someone else could have prayed to a different god to move the tree. How do you know it was not their god who did it?

Even if the tree was moved magically or supernaturally, with no evidence showing who did it and how, it could have been Satan trying to fool you. Or Shango. Or Thor. Or some shy god nobody has heard of. Or maybe it was aliens using a tree lifting ray.

You cannot conclude that it was your god who moved the tree without any evidence that shows that it had to be your god, and only your god. You have no way to rule out all the other possibilities. You jump to the conclusion that it was your god, but you have no explanation for doing that.
I agree with you. I didn't talk about God moving the tree. It was someone else's idea. So ask him, not me.

Then you are agreeing that you do not know how the tree was moved. So cannot say that it was a god. You cannot absolutely rule out a god or a fairy with a magical tree moving ray, but there are a lot of possibilities to rule out before you get to the magical or supernatural.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 23, 2014, 03:31:39 PM
First, if you actually did move the tree, I want to know how.  Not because it will make the slightest bit of difference as to whether you exist (because I have PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that you exist - your presence in front of me, that I can confirm with my senses), but because I'm not willing to accept your claim that you moved it without additional evidence.  Now, if you had a truck parked nearby, and I saw tire tracks in the road that showed a vehicle pushing the tree out of the way, I would consider that sufficient evidence to substantiate your claim.  But if you're just standing there smiling, and there's a tree by the side of the road which you claimed to have moved, I'm going to expect you to show me how you moved it rather than just assuming you have magic superpowers that allow you to.  And if you refuse, I'm going to not believe that you actually did move it.  This isn't a book or a play, where you can expect me to suspend my disbelief.  This is reality, where if you claim to be able to do something, someone is eventually going to expect you to follow through with it.

What you say make sense, it is right too.
But are you listening to me? I am talking about my existence. I know that you can see me, but I could argue that I was only in your imagination. I cannot be only in your head if I moved the tree that you asked me to move.
Let's say that for this example, I moved the tree simply by pushing it out of the way with my bare hands. You didn't see me push it away because you closed your eyes.  I come back to the car and tell you to go. All the information you have is you are here, in a car and there was a tree blocking the road that is not there anymore. You "know" that I'm here (since your senses can be fooled). Isn't the fact that the tree is not blocking you anymore after you ask me to move it for you proof enough of my existence? Don't you believe in the existence of stuff with less proof than that?

Quote
Second, and much more important, we are not talking about a human being physically moving a tree.  We are talking about some immaterial being presumably doing things to physical matter without leaving the slightest sign behind it to show that it did.  You cannot simply say, "God healed that woman's hand" simply because her hand healed.  You have to show that God exists in the first place - because it could simply be some freak coincidence of factors that caused her hand to heal - and then you have to show how God performed the healing.  If you can't, then you're arguing from ignorance (basically, you don't know how it happened, therefore God), and there's no reason whatsoever to accept what you say, even if you have a million people (or a billion) who agree that your god did it without knowing how.  Because that's an argument from popularity (if lots of people believe, it must be true).
I know, miracles are not simple mater. It is very complicated to recognize one. It takes time and many people. You have to make sure it is not "luck" of "natural healing" or anything that it could be before claiming it is a miracle.

Quote
If you have a million sick and injured people all going to Lourdes every year, even if there is only a one in a million chance that they would have healed due to natural causes during the time they were present, that still means you have a pretty good chance that one of them will heal while they're there.  That's why I don't accept your claim that your god is doing the healings; when you consider the number of people who go there hoping against hope that they'll be healed, it stands to reason that, occasionally, one of them will get healed due to something that seems miraculous.  But that doesn't mean that it's supernatural, even with the procedures the Catholic Church has set up.  The most they can say is that we don't know how they healed.
It comes back to how would YOU do it? You seem to say that the system in place is not good. I can understand how it can be perceived as flawed when it is looked from afar. But then you can take a little time with your conscience and ask her what would make YOU accept the miracle? Can you trust your senses?
How was the way they declared the miracle as such different to the way YOU would find acceptable?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 23, 2014, 03:35:04 PM
Then you are agreeing that you do not know how the tree was moved. So cannot say that it was a god. You cannot absolutely rule out a god or a fairy with a magical tree moving ray, but there are a lot of possibilities to rule out before you get to the magical or supernatural.
Yes I agree with you.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 23, 2014, 05:27:05 PM
Then you are agreeing that you do not know how the tree was moved. So cannot say that it was a god. You cannot absolutely rule out a god or a fairy with a magical tree moving ray, but there are a lot of possibilities to rule out before you get to the magical or supernatural.
Yes I agree with you.

Good so far. Now, if you can agree with that, you should also agree that, if you do not know how a person's paralyzed hand was able to move, you cannot say it was your god, either. You cannot absolutely rule out a different god or a fairy with a magical hand moving ray, but there are a lot of possibilities to rule out before you get to the magical or supernatural.

You cannot rule out a shy but powerful alien being who likes to secretly heal people at Lourdes one every 10 million times. The shy but powerful alien (SBPA) could even tell the consulting priest that it was his god who healed the paralyzed hand. So the SBPA could remain hidden and secret because that is how she rolls.

If you do not know exactly what healed the hand, or how it was done how do you know it was your god? You are only assuming it was your god, but you have no reason to rule out a SBPA, a different god or something else entirely. Right?

Are we cool?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 23, 2014, 06:26:54 PM
What you say make sense, it is right too.
Not enough sense, apparently.

Quote from: Lukvance
But are you listening to me?
Of course I'm listening to you.  The problem is, you aren't listening to yourself.

A while back, I was pre-reading a story that someone wrote, and I had to tell them that the dialogue sucked; it sounded stilted and unrealistic.  I told him to try reading it to himself to see what I meant.  He took me more literally than I'd intended and actually recorded himself reading the entire story, then listened to it, and he told me that the experience really helped him understand just what was wrong with his dialogue.  So I'm going to suggest that to you - before you write posts like this, read them to yourself, aloud if need be, to see whether what you wrote is really as clear as you thought it was when you originally wrote it.

Quote from: Lukvance
I am talking about my existence. I know that you can see me, but I could argue that I was only in your imagination. I cannot be only in your head if I moved the tree that you asked me to move.
If I were truly that delusional, I could not trust other things that I seemed to perceive.  Maybe the tree was never blocking the road to begin with; maybe I just imagined that it was.  See the problem?  If the fact of my seeing you is in question, then the fact of my seeing the tree is also in question.  Therefore, you cannot use the tree being moved as evidence of your existence, because the tree could have only been in my imagination too.

Quote from: Lukvance
Let's say that for this example, I moved the tree simply by pushing it out of the way with my bare hands. You didn't see me push it away because you closed your eyes.  I come back to the car and tell you to go. All the information you have is you are here, in a car and there was a tree blocking the road that is not there anymore. You "know" that I'm here (since your senses can be fooled). Isn't the fact that the tree is not blocking you anymore after you ask me to move it for you proof enough of my existence? Don't you believe in the existence of stuff with less proof than that?
Even if I would have been willing to simply close my eyes and let you move the tree for me (which is exceedingly doubtful; I would have helped move it), I would have been able to hear you moving the tree.  And before you try to revise your example by saying you asked me to cover my ears, I would have point-blank refused someone asking me to close my eyes and cover my ears in a situation like that, no matter how well I knew them.

That aside, my point from earlier stands.  If I can be fooled into hallucinating a person offering to move a tree for me, I can be fooled into hallucinating the tree that has to be moved.  You cannot use moving the tree as proof of your existence since the only way I knew the tree was there was through those very same senses that you just got done saying could be fooled.  So your analogy fails; a miraculous healing does not prove the existence of your god or any other supernatural being when there is no other evidence of that being present where the healing happened.

Quote from: Lukvance
I know, miracles are not simple mater. It is very complicated to recognize one. It takes time and many people. You have to make sure it is not "luck" of "natural healing" or anything that it could be before claiming it is a miracle.
How many times do I have to tell you that you cannot conclude that something is a divine miracle simply by excluding all known causes for it?  Not to mention that then you're constraining your god by saying that anything that has a known cause couldn't have been done by him.  More accurately, you're engaging in the god of the gaps fallacy; there is no reason at all to conclude that a divine being could not work through something in the natural world to heal someone rather than just making it happen through unexplainable magic.

Quote from: Lukvance
It comes back to how would YOU do it? You seem to say that the system in place is not good. I can understand how it can be perceived as flawed when it is looked from afar. But then you can take a little time with your conscience and ask her what would make YOU accept the miracle? Can you trust your senses?
The second you start asking someone what it would take for them to accept something as a miracle, you've pretty much lost the argument.  Why should I tell you what it would take for me to accept a miracle?  Pray to your god if you want to know; I grant him permission to tell you that and only that.  I am an honest person; if you state what your god tells you as a result of this prayer, I will truthfully state what my most basic criteria for "is that a miracle" is.  I will not lie in any way.  You don't even have to get it perfectly right, since it would be unfair to expect you to phrase it exactly the way I would.

Quote from: Lukvance
How was the way they declared the miracle as such different to the way YOU would find acceptable?
I cannot answer this without prejudicing my challenge to you, but I can say this.  Their criteria, that there must be no known explanation for it to be considered as a possible miracle, is based on the assumption that a natural event cannot have a supernatural cause, which constrains your god to only working miracles through things that have no explanation.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: epidemic on June 24, 2014, 01:18:58 PM
If you do not know exactly what healed the hand, or how it was done how do you know it was your god? You are only assuming it was your god, but you have no reason to rule out a SBPA, a different god or something else entirely. Right?

I would accept a significantly large enough sample of healing as evidence as well.  If 10% or 20% perhaps 30% of people with medically diagnosed and relatively uncorrectable maladies all spontaniously healed upon visiting lordes.  This might mean something.  .00063% is a statistical anomaly. 
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on June 24, 2014, 01:51:59 PM
This might mean something.  .00063% is a statistical anomaly.

It is not even that.  It is statistically irrelevant.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on June 24, 2014, 04:04:57 PM
I've been away for a month and still you are arguing irrationally. Go figure.
That is not my argument. I'm arguing my existence, not the fact that the tree was pushed naturally or not.

Then (as I've noted before) you are drawing a false analogy. We have lots of examples of people moving trees. And we can demonstrate them now. WE DO NOT have any examples of alleged deities doing things. What you have is conjecture (i.e. claims) and those are not the same. So please correct the fallacy. You cannot compare the two since (as I noted before) you do not have a "god" to present right now to anyone.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 24, 2014, 04:11:21 PM
This might mean something.  .00063% is a statistical anomaly.

It is not even that.  It is statistically irrelevant.

It's like the average American yearly salary as a percentage of the money Mitt Romney has spent to buy, train and maintain his dancing dressage horse-- I mean his wife's service animal. A rounding error.[1]
 1. Not including of course the $70,000 business tax deduction they got for having the animal. That whole thing still galls me, as you may have guessed. And some people actually voted for him.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 24, 2014, 04:27:07 PM
I don't make near 70K a year.....no wonder we pay 50% of our income in taxes and fees
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 24, 2014, 05:11:51 PM
I don't make near 70K a year.....no wonder we pay 50% of our income in taxes and fees

The US average household annual income is $52,000 IIRC. And many households have more than one person working. The Romneys got a tax break of over $70,000 just for having the horse.

Oh, yeah, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese pay much higher taxes than we in the US. We just complain louder. And we get angry when the government tries to reduce our costs by getting everyone some decent health insurance.

Sometimes I think my fellow citizens are like toddlers who kick and scream when their parents try to put their shoes on before they go outside in the snow....we would rather have frozen feet and pay far more in pain and suffering than have anyone tell us what to do.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: One Above All on June 24, 2014, 05:16:34 PM
The US average household annual income is $52,000 IIRC.

How much of that goes away after taxes?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 24, 2014, 06:08:34 PM
I don't make near 70K a year.....no wonder we pay 50% of our income in taxes and fees

The US average household annual income is $52,000 IIRC. And many households have more than one person working. The Romneys got a tax break of over $70,000 just for having the horse.

Oh, yeah, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese pay much higher taxes than we in the US. We just complain louder. And we get angry when the government tries to reduce our costs by getting everyone some decent health insurance.

Sometimes I think my fellow citizens are like toddlers who kick and scream when their parents try to put their shoes on before they go outside in the snow....we would rather have frozen feet and pay far more in pain and suffering than have anyone tell us what to do.
I am lucky enough to live near a border....gas in Vancouver was 6.80 a gallon for premium 15 minutes away in Bellingham 4.11 a gallon. .....one fill a week in the states saves me $1500.00 a year,,,,,that's a lot of cash IN MY POCKET
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 24, 2014, 06:29:10 PM
The US average household annual income is $52,000 IIRC.

How much of that goes away after taxes?

I used the google and looked it up. If the person is single and has no kids and takes only the standard deduction, they will pay tax on $42,650. That would be $6843.75, or about 17%.

The US tax brackets range from 10% at the lowest incomes to to 40% for the highest earning gazillionaires. Income tax is only paid on income, and many rich people don't even have much income, like from working at a job. They have trusts and dividends and sh!t, with even lower tax rates than 40%.

One reason why we have too little money to run social programs to care for the poor and sick, is that, as the population has aged and needs more services, the taxes on the top incomes have dropped from a high of 91% (from WWII until 1964, when the US economy was zoomin' hot)  to the 40% millionaires pay today[1] (with people at the lower end skipping meals to pay for medications, and living in their cars).

http://www.taxact.com/tools/tax-bracket-calculator.asp

What is depressing, from a commie mommy point of view, is to read the many comments from waitresses and retail clerks arguing that taxing the wealthiest people at higher rates is "unfair". If the rich have to pay higher taxes, they won't have any incentive to work hard. As if the people who own this country actually work as hard as a single mom who leaves her store clerk or bus driver job and then does a call center shift, plus sells cosmetics on the side.

Plus, the sales and gas taxes have to go up to make up for the revenue lost by the rich not paying enough. Those taxes hit the lower income folks the hardest, because they generally spend everything they earn.

When the poor are deluded enough to defend the rich-- who are robbing poor children's futures to leverage a third vacation home-- the rich don't need to do anything but sit back, count their money and laugh.
 1. and with the tax breaks for dressage horses and other loopholes, many don't even pay that much
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 24, 2014, 06:32:46 PM
I don't make near 70K a year.....no wonder we pay 50% of our income in taxes and fees

The US average household annual income is $52,000 IIRC. And many households have more than one person working. The Romneys got a tax break of over $70,000 just for having the horse.

Oh, yeah, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese pay much higher taxes than we in the US. We just complain louder. And we get angry when the government tries to reduce our costs by getting everyone some decent health insurance.

Sometimes I think my fellow citizens are like toddlers who kick and scream when their parents try to put their shoes on before they go outside in the snow....we would rather have frozen feet and pay far more in pain and suffering than have anyone tell us what to do.
I am lucky enough to live near a border....gas in Vancouver was 6.80 a gallon for premium 15 minutes away in Bellingham 4.11 a gallon. .....one fill a week in the states saves me $1500.00 a year,,,,,that's a lot of cash IN MY POCKET

We in the US live in a fantasy land in some ways. You Canadians and Europeans would love to pay the tax rates and gas prices that we the think are way too high. And people in the US want to impeach the president over a health care program that would be too limited to ever be accepted in Canada or Europe.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 25, 2014, 02:11:00 PM
Good so far. Now, if you can agree with that, you should also agree that, if you do not know how a person's paralyzed hand was able to move, you cannot say it was your god, either.
Why? How would YOU know it is not? How would YOU know if it is? I know how to proceed if I want to make sure it is from God and not from any other thing. How would you proceed?

Quote
there are a lot of possibilities to rule out before you get to the magical or supernatural.
I agree. Even if I disagree that miracles are magic stuff or not natural.

Quote
You cannot rule out a shy but powerful alien being who likes to secretly heal people at Lourdes one every 10 million times. The shy but powerful alien (SBPA) could even tell the consulting priest that it was his god who healed the paralyzed hand. So the SBPA could remain hidden and secret because that is how she rolls.
Why can't you rule that out? I mean, you are able to rule out that the world doesn't evolve around you (every one other than you is an actor), no?

Quote
If you do not know exactly what healed the hand, or how it was done how do you know it was your god? You are only assuming it was your god, but you have no reason to rule out a SBPA, a different god or something else entirely. Right?
Those are big *if*. In the cases of miracles we know what healed the hand. It was God's "hand". We (humans) ruled out any other possible answer.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 25, 2014, 02:52:34 PM
Luk,tell us how you would determine your conclusion on the hand without evidence? I can easily determine Satan fixed the "hand" if I don't need to supply more than a feeling he did.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on June 25, 2014, 02:58:18 PM
Good so far. Now, if you can agree with that, you should also agree that, if you do not know how a person's paralyzed hand was able to move, you cannot say it was your god, either.
Why? How would YOU know it is not? How would YOU know if it is? I know how to proceed if I want to make sure it is from God and not from any other thing. How would you proceed?

Quote
there are a lot of possibilities to rule out before you get to the magical or supernatural.
I agree. Even if I disagree that miracles are magic stuff or not natural.

Quote
You cannot rule out a shy but powerful alien being who likes to secretly heal people at Lourdes one every 10 million times. The shy but powerful alien (SBPA) could even tell the consulting priest that it was his god who healed the paralyzed hand. So the SBPA could remain hidden and secret because that is how she rolls.
Why can't you rule that out? I mean, you are able to rule out that the world doesn't evolve around you (every one other than you is an actor), no?

Quote
If you do not know exactly what healed the hand, or how it was done how do you know it was your god? You are only assuming it was your god, but you have no reason to rule out a SBPA, a different god or something else entirely. Right?
Those are big *if*. In the cases of miracles we know what healed the hand. It was God's "hand". We (humans) ruled out any other possible answer.

This is one big fat example of you using the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. Since you are making the supernatural claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it was a "miracle". Furthermore, you're in a real bind with such attempts because merely CLAIMING something was "a miracle" does not explaining anything. It is a placeholder for your own ignorance - since you have not presented any mechanism that can be independently demonstrated as to how such a "healing" was carried out. Furthermore, just because you can ASSERT that your alleged invisible god thing was the cause, doesn't mean that it is. That's just an assertion with no backing (just like every religion tries). You would first need to rule out ALL other possibilities (by first establishing a reliable method for distinguishing between a "miracle" and a non-miracle). Your saying it is a miracle doesn't make it so - and if there is no current explanation of a given phenomena your assertion doesn't win by default. Instead, you should be admitting ignorance on the subject (agnosticism) instead of deploying your confirmation bias. But you aren't willing to do that, are you? Because of your theological pre-commitments you feel that you must assert that your god must have done it. And yet, if other religions tried such tactics (as a method for asserting their theology was the correct one) you wouldn't accept that their religion was the true one, would you? So you are practicing hypocrisy (a double standard of evidence) and that is the problem.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 25, 2014, 03:46:55 PM
Why? How would YOU know it is not? How would YOU know if it is?
Exactly, she wouldn't know how to tell if it was your god or not.  What you keep not understanding is that this applies to you as well.

Quote from: Lukvance
I know how to proceed if I want to make sure it is from God and not from any other thing. How would you proceed?
No, what you have is a process that you think identifies something as coming from your god, but it does no such thing.  First off, you're ruling out anything that seems to have a perfectly natural cause as being definitely not caused by your god.  Your criteria for something possibly being a miracle is whether someone can explain how it happened, but this is ultimately substituting ignorance for knowledge.  Not to mention that you are limiting how your god might act in the world.  Who are you to declare that your god can't work a miracle through perfectly natural causes?

And second, once you have confirmed that there is no known explanation, you then leave the decision up to a priest, as if he is the final authority who decides once and for whether it is or isn't.  Never mind that this is simply an extension of the point I just mentioned.  Who is this priest to declare what is and isn't a miracle?  Why can't your god speak for himself and simply make it known that such-and-such was healed through his power, rather than leaving it up to some human to declare it for him?

Quote from: Lukvance
Why can't you rule that out? I mean, you are able to rule out that the world doesn't evolve around you (every one other than you is an actor), no?
I think you mean 'revolve'.  Anyway, you can't rule anything out without positive knowledge.  It's why science is structured the way it is; we can't tell if something is correct, for sure and certain; we can only tell that it is incorrect.

One of the problems with your church's process of vetting miracles is that, as it's based on scientists not being able to currently explain how someone was healed, it's simply an assumption that scientists will not ever be able to explain it and thus it will remain a miracle.  So what happens to the 'miracle' if a scientist demonstrates in a decade or two exactly how someone with, say, a paralyzed hand can spontaneously recover from it?

Quote from: Lukvance
Those are big *if*. In the cases of miracles we know what healed the hand. It was God's "hand". We (humans) ruled out any other possible answer.
No, you ruled out any known explanation, so you can't conclude that it was your god, because there are many possible but unknown explanations out there.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on June 25, 2014, 04:24:49 PM
One of the problems with your church's process of vetting miracles is that, as it's based on scientists not being able to currently explain how someone was healed, it's simply an assumption that scientists will not ever be able to explain it and thus it will remain a miracle.

Lukvance, another problem with the church's process of vetting miracles is that, at least according to skeptic54768, the church leaders are taking their marching orders from Satan.  I would assume that would make any conclusions you draw from the church to be somewhat less than trustworthy, no?

Lukvance, if you disagree with skeptic54768 regarding the Catholic church and it being run by Satan, I invite you to participate in the following thread:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26945.0.html

Edit: Clearly indicated who I am actually talking to with this post
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 25, 2014, 04:28:08 PM
There's a limit to the number of discussions I can effectively take part in at the same time before I start losing track of things.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: One Above All on June 25, 2014, 04:29:00 PM
There's a limit to the number of discussions I can effectively take part in at the same time before I start losing track of things.

I think he was referring to Lukvance.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on June 25, 2014, 04:30:18 PM
There's a limit to the number of discussions I can effectively take part in at the same time before I start losing track of things.

There's a limit to the number of discussions I can effectively take part in at the same time before I start losing track of things.

I think he was referring to Lukvance.

One Above All is correct.

Apologies for being unclear.

Lukvance, that invite to participate in the thread is for you.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 25, 2014, 04:49:40 PM
The second you start asking someone what it would take for them to accept something as a miracle, you've pretty much lost the argument.  Why should I tell you what it would take for me to accept a miracle?  Pray to your god if you want to know; I grant him permission to tell you that and only that.  I am an honest person; if you state what your god tells you as a result of this prayer, I will truthfully state what my most basic criteria for "is that a miracle" is.  I will not lie in any way.  You don't even have to get it perfectly right, since it would be unfair to expect you to phrase it exactly the way I would.
I don't think an argument is lost when someone ask the opposite party about their view on the subject.
I believe that nothing will convince you that a miracle is God's action as long as you are not involved in one.
I know of things that will convince me that miracles are not God's actions in this world. (like if the consequences of said miracle are "bad")
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 25, 2014, 04:52:47 PM
Then (as I've noted before) you are drawing a false analogy. We have lots of examples of people moving trees. And we can demonstrate them now. WE DO NOT have any examples of alleged deities doing things.
We have miracles. Lots of them.

Quote
What you have is conjecture (i.e. claims) and those are not the same. So please correct the fallacy. You cannot compare the two since (as I noted before) you do not have a "god" to present right now to anyone.
Alright you think it is conjecture. Tell me how this is conjecture and how the finding of the Higgs Boson isn't conjecture?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 25, 2014, 04:55:43 PM
Luk,tell us how you would determine your conclusion on the hand without evidence? I can easily determine Satan fixed the "hand" if I don't need to supply more than a feeling he did.
I wouldn't. Fortunately, there is plenty evidence that it is an act from God.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 25, 2014, 04:58:43 PM
Luk,tell us how you would determine your conclusion on the hand without evidence? I can easily determine Satan fixed the "hand" if I don't need to supply more than a feeling he did.
I wouldn't. Fortunately, there is plenty evidence that it is an act from God.
because I say so,is not evidence......as I could attribute your " miracle" to Satan and make that assertion without evidence
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 25, 2014, 05:10:37 PM
This is one big fat example of you using the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. Since you are making the supernatural claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it was a "miracle". Furthermore, you're in a real bind with such attempts because merely CLAIMING something was "a miracle" does not explaining anything. It is a placeholder for your own ignorance - since you have not presented any mechanism that can be independently demonstrated as to how such a "healing" was carried out. Furthermore, just because you can ASSERT that your alleged invisible god thing was the cause, doesn't mean that it is. That's just an assertion with no backing (just like every religion tries). You would first need to rule out ALL other possibilities (by first establishing a reliable method for distinguishing between a "miracle" and a non-miracle). Your saying it is a miracle doesn't make it so - and if there is no current explanation of a given phenomena your assertion doesn't win by default. Instead, you should be admitting ignorance on the subject (agnosticism) instead of deploying your confirmation bias. But you aren't willing to do that, are you? Because of your theological pre-commitments you feel that you must assert that your god must have done it. And yet, if other religions tried such tactics (as a method for asserting their theology was the correct one) you wouldn't accept that their religion was the true one, would you? So you are practicing hypocrisy (a double standard of evidence) and that is the problem.
You should read about the Devil's advocate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01168b.htm) he is the guy used also in case of a miracle. There is a court who will judge the event to be a miracle or not. The burden of proof is not for me to wear it has already been worn by the advocate defending the miracle case.
What you all seem to miss is that I am not the one claiming these are miracle. I am only reporting them to you. All your counter arguments have already been submitted and dismissed by professional people on the matter.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: wow on June 25, 2014, 05:12:21 PM
Then (as I've noted before) you are drawing a false analogy. We have lots of examples of people moving trees. And we can demonstrate them now. WE DO NOT have any examples of alleged deities doing things.
We have miracles. Lots of them.

Quote
What you have is conjecture (i.e. claims) and those are not the same. So please correct the fallacy. You cannot compare the two since (as I noted before) you do not have a "god" to present right now to anyone.
Alright you think it is conjecture. Tell me how this is conjecture and how the finding of the Higgs Boson isn't conjecture?

Hmm.. Perhaps you might want to rethink the latter?
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113177094/higgs-boson-discovery-new-evidence-062414/
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 25, 2014, 05:24:23 PM
Why? How would YOU know it is not? How would YOU know if it is?
Exactly, she wouldn't know how to tell if it was your god or not.  What you keep not understanding is that this applies to you as well.
*I* know how. "My" answers to these question are the one you are trying to argue with.

Quote
Who are you to declare that your god can't work a miracle through perfectly natural causes?
Miracle are not unnatural.

Quote
Who is this priest to declare what is and isn't a miracle?  Why can't your god speak for himself and simply make it known that such-and-such was healed through his power, rather than leaving it up to some human to declare it for him?
HOW exactly do you expect him to MAKE IT KNOWN? Will it change your belief?
There is a jury and a trial for each miracle. When the verdict is out the priest of the place where the miracle occurred make the verdict public.

Quote
One of the problems with your church's process of vetting miracles is that, as it's based on scientists not being able to currently explain how someone was healed, it's simply an assumption that scientists will not ever be able to explain it and thus it will remain a miracle.  So what happens to the 'miracle' if a scientist demonstrates in a decade or two exactly how someone with, say, a paralyzed hand can spontaneously recover from it?
It will simply not be a miracle anymore. Until then, it is. This is how the scientific method works too. It proves something is true until proven otherwise.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on June 25, 2014, 05:30:46 PM

You should read about the Devil's advocate (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01168b.htm) he is the guy used also in case of a miracle. There is a court who will judge the event to be a miracle or not. The burden of proof is not for me to wear it has already been worn by the advocate defending the miracle case.
What you all seem to miss is that I am not the one claiming these are miracle. I am only reporting them to you. All your counter arguments have already been submitted and dismissed by professional people on the matter.

Now you're just being dishonest because YOU DO in fact believe these cases are "miracles". Yet you are immediately switching to using fallacious arguments (in this case the fallacy of Argument from Authority) when you have not demonstrated that these people are "authorities" on "miracles". It is just hear-say all the way down. If you think one (or more) of these alleged cases is "a miracle" then please demonstrate the actual evidence and argument that was presented to these alleged "judges" by which they somehow determined an actual "miracle" occurred. I will address your false analogy in the next post.

EDIT: Your "Devil's Advocate" link doesn't provide any information as to how this alleged "expert" can reliably determine a miracle from a non-miracle. Since arguments stand or fall on their own merits (not who makes them) it doesn't matter to me if this person claims to be an "expert" or whether you believe it. What matters are the evidences and arguments to be evaluated in the light of reason. Thus far, your continual use of logically fallacious arguments gives justification for disbelieving your claims.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 25, 2014, 05:36:48 PM
Hmm.. Perhaps you might want to rethink the latter?
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113177094/higgs-boson-discovery-new-evidence-062414/
What? you mean that you never heard of miracles still occurring today? That some more "proof" of the existence of miracles are discovered everyday!?
I am saying in analogy : Miracle = Higgs Boson.
Proof of Higgs Boson = Proof of miracles. (I don't know how to properly say that in English, I want to make sure that there is no ambiguity miracles and higgs bosons are 2 completely different things who share similar attributes.)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 25, 2014, 05:37:44 PM
What's next for this clown....exorcisms?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 25, 2014, 05:40:06 PM
Hmm.. Perhaps you might want to rethink the latter?
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113177094/higgs-boson-discovery-new-evidence-062414/
What? you mean that you never heard of miracles still occurring today? That some more "proof" of the existence of miracles are discovered everyday!?
I am saying in analogy : Miracle = Higgs Boson.
Proof of Higgs Boson = Proof of miracles. (I don't know how to properly say that in English, I want to make sure that there is no ambiguity miracles and higgs bosons are 2 completely different things who share similar attributes.)
you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence for your "miracles"
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 25, 2014, 05:40:44 PM
I don't think an argument is lost when someone ask the opposite party about their view on the subject.
The problem is, what you're actually asking is what it would take for me to accept that it was a miracle.  That's why I said you've effectively lost the argument; you have no criteria which would actually convince a skeptic such as myself that your 'miracles' are any such things.

Quote from: Lukvance
I believe that nothing will convince you that a miracle is God's action as long as you are not involved in one.
With all due respect, even if I was directly involved, I still would not be convinced, for the simple reason that "I don't know how it happened" does not translate to "God did it".  Which is what your argument boils down to.  Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the people who do heal at Lourdes or elsewhere, but I'm not willing to simply assume that those are divine healings when the criteria that you've stated and restated simply boils down to "scientists don't know, so we asked a priest, who said it was God".  I'm not Catholic, so I don't accept the authority of your priests to declare such a thing, and therefore your method can never satisfy me.  Frankly, I don't believe any human can identify whether something was a divine miracle simply by praying, because there's no way to tell if the god that granted it is actually answering or not.

Quote from: Lukvance
I know of things that will convince me that miracles are not God's actions in this world. (like if the consequences of said miracle are "bad")
Why do you think that a being opposed to your god would do obviously bad things?  Frankly, if it were sneaky enough, it would do good things as a lure, such as by making people think that if they traveled to a certain place, they might get healed, and then making the rate of healings so low that for the vast majority of people who go there, it's largely a waste of time and resources.  There would be no hook, no 'evil' involved; simply tricking people into wasting their time and money going there would be more than sufficient.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Emily on June 25, 2014, 05:41:05 PM
It will simply not be a miracle anymore. Until then, it is. This is how the scientific method works too. It proves something is true until proven otherwise.

SO, you are saying a "miracle" wont be considered a miracle anymore when it's proven to be caused through more realistic means? That is a very odd way to look at miracles. What is a miracle now wont be a miracle in 10 years once it's proven otherwise. That's a bit of a cop-out answer for explaining what is and what is not a miracle, IMO. Very, very dishonest.

So, then. In your view everything was at one point a miracle, because it wasn't proven any other way. That includes childbirth, why the Earth orbits the Sun, why Earth is able to have liquid water and is protected by the atmosphere.

Science seeks answers. Your POV seeks "proof" to God's existence in what cannot currently be explained in any other way through science, but in time and as science advances that "proof" for God's existence, through a "miracle", is no longer "proof" because it's no longer a "miracle", and is only an example of how the universe operates as if there is no God involved.

Where does it end, Luk? Where will you simply stop attributing something as a miracle to something that just cannot be explained yet?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on June 25, 2014, 05:47:29 PM
Then (as I've noted before) you are drawing a false analogy. We have lots of examples of people moving trees. And we can demonstrate them now. WE DO NOT have any examples of alleged deities doing things.
We have miracles. Lots of them.

Your saying it is so doesn't make it so. Prove it. In the exact same way as I can demonstrate someone moving a true - demonstrate a "miracle". Otherwise, you are drawing a false analogy and your argument is invalid.

Quote
What you have is conjecture (i.e. claims) and those are not the same. So please correct the fallacy. You cannot compare the two since (as I noted before) you do not have a "god" to present right now to anyone.
Alright you think it is conjecture. Tell me how this is conjecture and how the finding of the Higgs Boson isn't conjecture?

Where have I, at any time, made ANY claims about the Higgs-Boson? I haven't! So stop trying to change the subject. I haven't claimed to know anything about that subject and don't pretend to (like you are trying to pretend to 'know' when a "miracle" has occurred). But what you seem to be implying is that if science discovers something that you cannot readily see right now then it must be just the same thing as proclaiming a miracle has occurred. But that is another false analogy (a logical fallacy) because scientific explanations have explanatory power, predictive power, the capability of being falsified, and independent verification. You do not have this with your alleged "miracles". You have CLAIMS, by people with a vested interest in confirmation bias. The two methods are nothing alike.

Once again, I have challenged you to provide a reliable method for us to independently determine the difference between an alleged "miracle" and a non-miracle. And so far you have not done it. All you've done is make yet another claim saying, "Well, if science can't explain it then it must be a miracle." But that doesn't fly as a sufficient answer because it is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because science may or may not have an explanation (currently) does not in any way mean that YOUR theological ASSUMPTION wins by default. Anyone from any religion can try that. It fails for them just as it fails for you. The ancients tried your tactic with Zeus, saying that lightening and thunder must be from the gods. But now we have science that explains (in detail) how and why there is lightening and thunder, and it explains the mechanisms of weather and how those things come about (i.e. - the ancients were wrong in their arguments from ignorance just as you are). Again, when you don't know something you should admit it, instead of arrogantly ASSERTING that your alleged "god" did it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 25, 2014, 05:50:19 PM
Lukvance, you did not address how you (or anyone) can tell if a hand was healed by your god, or by a shy but powerful alien being who secretly heals one person of every 10 million who visit Lourdes.

Remember, the SBPA wants to remain secret because she is shy. She can do healings of paralyzed hands because she is powerful. The SBPA tells the investigating priest that it was his god who healed the hand, but it is really her. Any court proceeding or devil's advocate involved would also be controlled by her. She can make people feel like it was their god and not her who healed the hand. (But it was really her.)

How could anyone rule out the SBPA in favor of their god? What steps would they take?  How would anyone tell the difference? Why would you, Lukvance, assume that it was your god and not an SBPA?

My main point here is that if you do not know how the hand was healed, you cannot then assume you know how or who or what healed the hand! All you can say in truth is what the scientists say: The hand was healed and we do not know how it happened.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 25, 2014, 05:58:48 PM
Now you're just being dishonest because YOU DO in fact believe these cases are "miracles". Yet you are immediately switching to using fallacious arguments (in this case the fallacy of Argument from Authority) when you have not demonstrated that these people are "authorities" on "miracles". It is just hear-say all the way down. If you think one (or more) of these alleged cases as "a miracle" then please demonstrate the actual evidence and argument that was presented to these alleged "judges" by which they somehow determined an actual "miracle" occurred. I will address your false analogy in the next post.
I don't understand.
Maybe the following video will help you in your quest of knowledge :
http://youtu.be/5N4vlZtMWW0
You can also buy this scientist book to further know about miracles and science.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 25, 2014, 06:15:29 PM
There are scientists and doctors who ARE theists believe it or not Luk. If a scientist is also a theists,they have their mind already leaning to the side of miracle and away from any science that exists. This video is clearly nothing more than propaganda.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 25, 2014, 06:19:39 PM
Lukvance, you did not address how you (or anyone) can tell if a hand was healed by your god, or by a shy but powerful alien being who secretly heals one person of every 10 million who visit Lourdes.

Remember, the SBPA wants to remain secret because she is shy. She can do healings of paralyzed hands because she is powerful. The SBPA tells the investigating priest that it was his god who healed the hand, but it is really her. Any court proceeding or devil's advocate involved would also be controlled by her. She can make people feel like it was their god and not her who healed the hand. (But it was really her.)

How could anyone rule out the SBPA in favor of their god? What steps would they take?  How would anyone tell the difference? Why would you, Lukvance, assume that it was your god and not an SBPA?

My main point here is that if you do not know how the hand was healed, you cannot then assume you know how or who or what healed the hand! All you can say in truth is what the scientists say: The hand was healed and we do not know how it happened.
It's like looking at a picture of two crashed cars that are utterly destroyed and claiming its a miracle everybody survived,without having any other knowledge of the accident scene
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 25, 2014, 06:22:04 PM
*I* know how. "My" answers to these question are the one you are trying to argue with.
Your belief is not the same thing as actual knowledge, and you need to stop pretending otherwise, especially when its so evident that you really don't know.  If you had information that could give you actual knowledge rather than feeding your belief, you wouldn't have had to waste time arguing in favor of testimony and semantics.  You could simply have presented the information, explained where you got it from, and other people could have verified it on their own.

Quote from: Lukvance
Miracle are not unnatural.
I want a straight answer from you.  Are these miracles of yours natural events, or are they not natural events?

If your miracles are natural events, then the criteria that the Catholic church uses for determining whether a healing at Lourdes is a miracle is just plain wrong, because it excludes things that scientists can explain.  And if your miracles are not natural events, then they are by definition unnatural (meaning, something that wouldn't happen naturally).

Quote from: Lukvance
HOW exactly do you expect him to MAKE IT KNOWN? Will it change your belief?
Since you refrained from accepting my challenge to pray to your god to find out what my criteria for something being a true miracle was, I am under no obligation to tell you anything.  If you want to know what my criteria for considering something a miracle is, or how I expect your god to make it known that he's the cause of something, you can pray to him to find out.

Quote from: Lukvance
There is a jury and a trial for each miracle. When the verdict is out the priest of the place where the miracle occurred make the verdict public.
So humans get to decide whether something is a miracle or not?  Alright, then I am stating that every single event declared a 'miracle' by the Catholic church is in fact an unexplained natural event with no known cause, which said church believes is a miracle with nothing in the way of actual evidence.  This will of course not change the opinions of yourself or other Catholics, nor do I expect it to, but that is my position, and you will need actual evidence to move me from it.

Quote from: Lukvance
It will simply not be a miracle anymore. Until then, it is. This is how the scientific method works too. It proves something is true until proven otherwise.
No, science doesn't prove that things are true.  Science isn't about proving things true in the first place; it's about showing that they aren't false.  For example, the conclusion that the sun revolved around Earth was not proved false until Copernicus was able to connect all the observations that had been made since and connected the dots.  Yet geocentrism was a properly scientific conclusion for its time.  The conclusion that the body was regulated by four 'humors' was not proved false until scientists such as William Harvey and Otto Loewi showed that it was actually chemicals in the blood called hormones that did this, and that the four colored 'humors' were actually components of the blood.  Yet the theory of humors was also a properly scientific conclusion for its time.

That is the problem with these 'miracles' of yours.  They are not based on showing what actually causes them; they are based on arbitrarily deciding that they must be caused by your god because we don't know for sure what caused them.  Are you finally starting to see the reason why, for all their pretensions of being scientific, these investigations that the Catholic church undertakes fundamentally don't prove anything?  The most they can prove is that we don't know what caused those healings.

I mean, do you really want to use a discipline which is fundamentally about showing that the latest and greatest attempt to explain something is in fact wrong to show that your beliefs about your god are in fact right?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 25, 2014, 06:29:46 PM
The problem is, what you're actually asking is what it would take for me to accept that it was a miracle.  That's why I said you've effectively lost the argument; you have no criteria which would actually convince a skeptic such as myself that your 'miracles' are any such things.
I have arguments. I agree with you that someone who do not want to be convinced won't ever be convinced. Heck there are people who think that they have super powers and even if you put them to the test and they fail, they still think that they have super powers.
I could even tell you that there is no way you could convince me that the Higgs Boson exist. Or that we walked on the moon. I just have to say "your proof is not enough"

Quote
With all due respect, even if I was directly involved, I still would not be convinced
Most miracles (actions of God in the world) are spiritual ones.
Quote
  the criteria that you've stated and restated simply boils down to "scientists don't know, so we asked a priest, who said it was God"
That is not what I stated. Only what you guys want me to state so you can prove me wrong.
Listen, the Higgs boson was theorized and it is when and only when every other possibilities where excluded that they declared that what they measured was the higgs boson.

Quote
Why do you think that a being opposed to your god would do obviously bad things?
It is because God is good and to be opposed to good cannot be something else than bad.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 25, 2014, 06:36:59 PM
Some miracles that are still miracles even after 2000 years :
http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/cant-all-jesus-miracles-be-explained-naturally

The nature of miracles :
"The term contrary to nature does not mean "unnatural" in the sense of producing discord and confusion. The forces of nature differ in power and are in constant interaction. This produces interferences and counteractions of forces. This is true of mechanical, chemical, and biological forces. So, also, at every moment of the day I interfere with and counteract natural forces about me. I study the properties of natural forces with a view to obtain conscious control by intelligent counteractions of one force against another. Intelligent counteraction marks progress in chemistry, in physics — e.g., steam locomotion, aviation — and in the prescriptions of the physician. Man controls nature, nay, can live only by the counteraction of natural forces. Though all this goes on around us, we never speak of natural forces violated. These forces are still working after their kind, and no force is destroyed, nor is any law broken, nor does confusion result. The introduction of human will may bring about a displacement of the physical forces, but no infraction of physical processes." More on: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 25, 2014, 06:52:09 PM
We do not need your definition,we ask for proof,please provide proof.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 25, 2014, 06:56:33 PM
First off you need to prove Jesus is real.....All we have are religions hijacking each others deities  with their own messiahs. Each evolution trying to out-do the last.  My prophet and my messiah are BETTER than yours.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on June 25, 2014, 07:19:46 PM
Luk, I watched the video you posted in it's entirety. The only thing it "helped" me with was to reinforce the knowledge that superstitious people (such as yourself) attempt to use the logical fallacy of The Argument from Ignorance in order to justify your belief that unexplained things are "miracles" (when you haven't demonstrated that). Your mere claim that something is a miracle, or anyone else's for that matter, doesn't mean that it is. Correlation does not equal causation!! I really don't care how many times you try to just ASSERT that a miracle occurred. That is just your "Because I say so" fallacy of question begging. It is ad hoc and arbitrary. Again, when there is no sufficient explanation for something you should admit it - not just ASSERT that your personal theological assumption is the answer. Anyone (from any belief system) can do that and it fails for them just as it fails for you. When science doesn't have an answer for something you don't win by default! Just like Muslims, Mormons, or Hindus don't win when they try it. It's bullshit for all of you!


MY NOTES FROM THE VIDEO:


• "either everything or nothing is a miracle"


• incarnation of Jesus was a miracle


• there is a supernatural plain


• claims of being "enriched by holy spirit and miracles"


• people come to find "the deep sense of their lives" at St. Padre Pio church


• "There is a desert in our soul"


• "god always answers prayer"


• "a miracle is just a sign of the presence of god"


• a grandmother had a ruptured disk...prayed...and she was 'healed'. We deemed it a miracle.


• "we are called to be more faithful to him [God] like he is faithful to us"


• Dr. Jackalyn Duffin (studied 1400 miracle cases) "miracle researcher" for the Vatican  (she grew up Christian)


• cancer goes to remission, comes back in relapse, then goes to remission (possible miracle)


• she then goes from "possible miracle" to "miracle" in her work


• "It's not explicable by science" so god must have done it (its a miracle)


• "I believe there are lots of things we can't explain scientifically and I have no problem whatsoever calling them miracles..." Jackalyn Duffin


• "the church sees everything as a creation of god" (so everything is a 'miracle')


• At St. Padre Pio church (a father had colon cancer, people prayed, cancer went away and they deemed it a miracle) - they attributed it to "God"


• St Padre Pio is a "modern Saint"
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 25, 2014, 07:45:29 PM
Hey, I just realized that we are way off the point, afuera del tema, can't remember how to say it in French, and we know how much it annoys Lukvance when we stray off the subject at hand.

The issue: is there a god that exists outside of human brains. Lukvance has gotten us all distracted with his miracles. But miracles are in no way evidence that a god exists outside of human brains! Miracles could be the result of actions performed by the god that exists inside of every human brain (well, every brain except Sarah Palin's).

This is due to the fact that in every possible miracle healing we have discussed here, there is no evidence of any external force whatsoever. There no reported sound, no increased measurement of temperature or excess of radiation detected, nothing visible emanates towards the part that is later found to be healed. The healing must therefore be coming from an internal healing force, an internal god. This internal god does not want to be detected because it might end up being exorcised, so it tells the priest inside his brain that it was the external Christian god that did the healing.

Since we do not know what healed the hand, the healed hand has to have been healed by the invisible secret god that lives only inside of the human brain. I have just proved it.[1]

Lukvance, over to you.
 1. has Lukvance figured out what falsification means yet? We will see if he gets it, or if his invisible secret god is still fooling him the way it fools the priest.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 25, 2014, 09:37:23 PM
I have arguments. I agree with you that someone who do not want to be convinced won't ever be convinced. Heck there are people who think that they have super powers and even if you put them to the test and they fail, they still think that they have super powers.
That's the problem; your approach depends on people wanting to be convinced, not on providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote from: Lukvance
I could even tell you that there is no way you could convince me that the Higgs Boson exist. Or that we walked on the moon. I just have to say "your proof is not enough"
However, that is not skepticism.  Skepticism is "I don't believe you just because you say so.  Show me the evidence."  What you're saying here is, "I don't believe you and I'll never believe you."

Quote from: Lukvance
Most miracles (actions of God in the world) are spiritual ones.
Which means what, precisely?  Right now it sounds like you're using that as an excuse to explain why scientists can't detect them, but that isn't a good excuse by any means.

Quote from: Lukvance
That is not what I stated. Only what you guys want me to state so you can prove me wrong.
It's a summary of what you said.  Furthermore, it is an accurate one.  To demonstrate this, let me pull a quote from one of your previous posts.

It's in prayer. The event is presented to the closest priest[1] who then contact his peers and together they pray to identify that it is indeed god interacting with the element, and not any other mystical, powerful, unnatural entity.
 1. http://en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles/recognition-of-a-miracle (http://en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles/recognition-of-a-miracle)

Unfortunately, due to the forum deleting two weeks worth of posts, I cannot directly quote any of your statements about scientists being consulted to find out whether they have a scientific explanation or not, but you said it quite often.  In addition, as another page (http://en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cures-and-miracles/the-international-medical-committee) on that website states, "the committee decides by way of a vote whether to declare or refuse to confirm that this cure is inexplicable according to present scientific knowledge."  And as indicated by your statement just above, it is only after this confirmation is declared that it is considered as possibly miraculous and transmitted to a priest for 'identification' as a miracle granted by God.

I paraphrased your statement as "scientists don't know, so we asked a priest, who said it was God".  This is, in fact, an accurate summation; a committee of doctors/scientists confirms whether the cure is inexplicable (or unexplainable, more accurately) according to present scientific knowledge, and then it is passed to a priest who, with his peers, prays to see if it is actually God.

Quote from: Lukvance
Listen, the Higgs boson was theorized and it is when and only when every other possibilities where excluded that they declared that what they measured was the higgs boson.
No, that is not the case.  Scientists who were trying to find the Higgs boson were trying to match the observed properties of the particles generated by the LHC with the theorized Higgs boson.  It was categorically not a matter of comparing them to everything known and then concluding that if it didn't match any of them, it had to be a Higgs boson; that approach is pretty much the antithesis of science.  Science has never done that; it's been about observing and formulating explanations for phenomena, then testing the explanations to see if we can't find some way to disprove them.

Quote from: Lukvance
It is because God is good and to be opposed to good cannot be something else than bad.
This is a false dichotomy.  It is possible to be opposed to one person's idea of what good is without being evil.  Just so, it is possible to be opposed to what a god thinks of as good without being evil.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 25, 2014, 11:17:43 PM
Quote from: Lukvance
It is because God is good and to be opposed to good cannot be something else than bad.
This is a false dichotomy.  It is possible to be opposed to one person's idea of what good is without being evil.  Just so, it is possible to be opposed to what a god thinks of as good without being evil.

Just this last part. Here is one example where two people can be opposed without either being evil: Many people think that corporal punishment is fine, and even give biblical reasons why it is actually a good thing to hit your kids. I am opposed to people hitting their kids as punishment. Both sides think they are right and are doing what is good. So, who is evil in this scenario?[1]
 1. I have written op-eds on it in response the idea that black people beating their children is just cultural and not abusive. No. It's abusive, harmful and unnecessary.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 28, 2014, 01:17:44 AM
Hey, I just realized that we are way off the point, afuera del tema, can't remember how to say it in French, and we know how much it annoys Lukvance when we stray off the subject at hand.

The issue: is there a god that exists outside of human brains. Lukvance has gotten us all distracted with his miracles. But miracles are in no way evidence that a god exists outside of human brains! Miracles could be the result of actions performed by the god that exists inside of every human brain (well, every brain except Sarah Palin's).

This is due to the fact that in every possible miracle healing we have discussed here, there is no evidence of any external force whatsoever. There no reported sound, no increased measurement of temperature or excess of radiation detected, nothing visible emanates towards the part that is later found to be healed. The healing must therefore be coming from an internal healing force, an internal god. This internal god does not want to be detected because it might end up being exorcised, so it tells the priest inside his brain that it was the external Christian god that did the healing.

Since we do not know what healed the hand, the healed hand has to have been healed by the invisible secret god that lives only inside of the human brain. I have just proved it.[1]

Lukvance, over to you.
 1. has Lukvance figured out what falsification means yet? We will see if he gets it, or if his invisible secret god is still fooling him the way it fools the priest.
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
An external force? Coming from where?
A sound, a light? Coming from where?
Higher temperature or excess of radiation? Caused by what?
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 28, 2014, 01:49:34 AM
That's the problem; your approach depends on people wanting to be convinced, not on providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate something beyond a reasonable doubt.
What if you are being unreasonable? What if every people who really looked into miracles tells you that you are unreasonable? Will you stop? I think not, I think you will still believe having super powers because it makes you stronger and without them you feel useless and alone.

Quote from: Lukvance
I could even tell you that there is no way you could convince me that the Higgs Boson exist. Or that we walked on the moon. I just have to say "your proof is not enough"
or I just have to say "your proof is not enough, show me real evidence!" again and again. No matter how much evidence you bring.

Quote
Quote from: Lukvance
Most miracles (actions of God in the world) are spiritual ones.
Which means what, precisely? 
Means that most people get spiritually healed/touched by God. Nothing in relation to scientists. Scientist got spiritually healed/touched by God too! (Albert Einstein, Max Planck, William Thomson Kelvin to only quote a few)

Quote
Quote from: Lukvance
Listen, the Higgs boson was theorized and it is when and only when every other possibilities where excluded that they declared that what they measured was the higgs boson.
No, that is not the case. Scientists who were trying to find the Higgs boson were trying to match the observed properties of the particles generated by the LHC with the theorized Higgs boson. 
People who were trying to find the "touch of God" were trying to match the observed properties of the events in Lourdes with the theorized "touch of God".
You see? Same thing than the Higgs. There is no way around it.

Quote
It was categorically not a matter of comparing them to everything known and then concluding that if it didn't match any of them, it had to be a Higgs boson;
Really? How did you know it was not something else if you didn't compare it with everything known?

Quote
it's been about observing and formulating explanations for phenomena, then testing the explanations to see if we can't find some way to disprove them.
It is just another way to say "compare it with everything known"

Quote
It is possible to be opposed to one person's idea of what good is without being evil.  Just so, it is possible to be opposed to what a god thinks of as good without being evil.
Are you comparing yourself to God? if not, you cannot use yourself or any human for that matter to "prove" your point.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 28, 2014, 01:51:27 AM
Why us luk asking us to explain how his imagined god works. how the fuk would an atheist know. luk should be explaining not asking. good deflection luk. will buy you some more pages here.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 28, 2014, 01:51:43 AM
So, who is evil in this scenario?[1]
 1. I have written op-eds on it in response the idea that black people beating their children is just cultural and not abusive. No. It's abusive, harmful and unnecessary.
I don't know who's choice is evil in your scenario but IT IS CERTAINLY NOT GOD! :)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 28, 2014, 01:55:49 AM
Yep touching water at lourdes is the same standard of rigour as building the ATLpAS detector at CERN. luk is mentally ill.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 28, 2014, 09:01:20 AM
What if you are being unreasonable? What if every people who really looked into miracles tells you that you are unreasonable? Will you stop? I think not, I think you will still believe having super powers because it makes you stronger and without them you feel useless and alone.
This is exactly how most of the people on this site feel about you.  No matter what anyone says, you basically come back with your opinion totally unchanged.  What you already believe is true no matter how unlikely people show it to be.  Most people are like that, though.  Even I tend to instinctively reject the conclusions of others.  The difference is, I've learned that other people might just know what they're talking about.  If what they say goes along with the available evidence, and what I say doesn't, then I don't keep holding to what I say just because I said it.

A line from one of my favorite songs goes, "the closer you get to something, the tougher it is to see it".  You are much too close to your belief to be able to look at it clearly, and you naturally assume that your belief is correct.  I am not close to it, and I don't go in assuming that it's correct, or not correct, so while that doesn't make my conclusions right, it does make them worth considering.

Quote from: Lukvance
or I just have to say "your proof is not enough, show me real evidence!" again and again. No matter how much evidence you bring.
You haven't brought any evidence that your god is responsible for the happenings at Lourdes, or that your god even exists, aside from the opinions of people who also believe in your god.  And those, to be blunt, are as suspect as yours is.  That's why I keep pushing for real evidence that unambiguously shows that your god exists.  I am not willing to take the word of a priest and his peers, especially when one of the criteria for being a priest is that they must believe in your god, and doubly so when their only 'evidence' to say that it is your god is what amounts to a group prayer session.

Quote from: Lukvance
Means that most people get spiritually healed/touched by God. Nothing in relation to scientists. Scientist got spiritually healed/touched by God too! (Albert Einstein, Max Planck, William Thomson Kelvin to only quote a few)
This isn't evidence of anything and it contradicts things like the 'miracles' at Lourdes; indeed, if I am reading you right, and the reason he does the miracles at Lourdes is so he can "spiritually heal/touch" people, that is a problem for your position here.  If he can do it in some cases, he can do it in all.

In any case, it still isn't clear just what you mean by this; please define precisely what you mean by 'spirit'.

Quote from: Lukvance
People who were trying to find the "touch of God" were trying to match the observed properties of the events in Lourdes with the theorized "touch of God".
You see? Same thing than the Higgs. There is no way around it.
There is no theory of "the touch of God", though.  This is nothing that anyone can actually confirm in any way - it is simply a belief held by some people which is amorphous enough that it can fit just about anything.  Like it or not, you cannot get around the fact that you have no scientific evidence to support your assertions here.  No amount of attempted equivocation by you will change that; in fact, every time you try, you are showing us that you are very much like that person who believes he has superpowers no matter what anyone tells him.  And equivocation is a form of lying.  Is lying to make your belief seem reasonable really the route you want to go?  I don't care particularly that you hold your belief, and I don't have any issues with you trying to use science to prove it, but I will not tolerate you attempting to change the standards of science, especially science that's already been established, so you can pretend that your beliefs are just as good as science.

Quote from: Lukvance
Really? How did you know it was not something else if you didn't compare it with everything known?
Science doesn't need to compare a result to everything known - the fact that you're still trying to harp on this is a pretty good indication that you don't have any clue of how science really works.  What matters in an experiment is whether the results match what you hypothesized or not, and whether your experiment used good enough procedures to exclude other possible causes.  How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?  What that means is that you set the experiment up so that only the thing you're actually testing can cause the change you're looking for.

Quote from: Lukvance
It is just another way to say "compare it with everything known"
No, it is not.  Repeating something that isn't true won't make it true no matter how much you believe that it is.  It just makes you ignorant.

The only reason you're saying this is so that you can claim that there's no difference between the nonsensical 'theories' you come up with to justify your belief in your god and what scientists use to actually do their work.  That's insulting, ignorant, and stupid of you, the same attitude you've held ever since you came onto this forum, and I'm getting tired of dealing with it.

Quote from: Lukvance
Are you comparing yourself to God? if not, you cannot use yourself or any human for that matter to "prove" your point.
I really couldn't care less about your attempt to put your god on a pedestal.  That's all you and other theists ever do - try raise your god up high so you can pretend that you've got the biggest power in the universe in your corner.  But you can't demonstrate it when it really counts, and that defeats the whole purpose.

If it's impossible to compare a human to your god, then all that means is that your god is incomprehensible.  Did you realize that?  How we understand things is by comparing them to other things.  You're trying to get around that by comparing your god to idealistic concepts, but it really hasn't accomplished much, has it?  How many people did you actually sway with that "greatest possible being" argument of yours?  How many people have you actually swayed by trying to argue that people at Lourdes have "scientifically demonstrated miracles"...by ruling out all known explanations and then handing the question off to priests who then go and pray to find out whether it is your god or not.

It's time to face facts, Lukvance - your arguments just simply don't work.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 28, 2014, 06:41:21 PM
Hey, I just realized that we are way off the point, afuera del tema, can't remember how to say it in French, and we know how much it annoys Lukvance when we stray off the subject at hand.

The issue: is there a god that exists outside of human brains. Lukvance has gotten us all distracted with his miracles. But miracles are in no way evidence that a god exists outside of human brains! Miracles could be the result of actions performed by the god that exists inside of every human brain (well, every brain except Sarah Palin's).

This is due to the fact that in every possible miracle healing we have discussed here, there is no evidence of any external force whatsoever. There no reported sound, no increased measurement of temperature or excess of radiation detected, nothing visible emanates towards the part that is later found to be healed. The healing must therefore be coming from an internal healing force, an internal god. This internal god does not want to be detected because it might end up being exorcised, so it tells the priest inside his brain that it was the external Christian god that did the healing.

Since we do not know what healed the hand, the healed hand has to have been healed by the invisible secret god that lives only inside of the human brain. I have just proved it.[1]

Lukvance, over to you.
 1. has Lukvance figured out what falsification means yet? We will see if he gets it, or if his invisible secret god is still fooling him the way it fools the priest.
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
An external force? Coming from where?
A sound, a light? Coming from where?
Higher temperature or excess of radiation? Caused by what?
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?

If it was a "god who is outside of human beings" who healed the lady's hand, something (kindly god thoughts, godly energy, godly forces, god rays, godly heat, holy spirit molecules, whatever) would have to come from that "god who is outside of human beings" to the hand. And that godly something would have to be different from regular old nothing. You with me so far?

If we cannot see, hear, measure or in any other way detect, anything coming to the hand from anywhere, we have detected nothing. The only thing we can say with any certainty, if we can detect nothing,  is that the hand was healed and we do not know how or why, because we cannot detect anything that might have cured the hand.

If we have detected nothing, we cannot then jump first to the conclusion that there is really something there, and then make a second jump that we know what that something is, and then make a third jump and assume that we can describe it!  Remember, we have detected no sign or evidence of anything being there. How can we assume to describe it?

If you hear a strange noise in your kitchen and go look, but see nothing in there, you cannot jump to the conclusion, based on this feeling you have, that the noise was definitely made by gigantic, invisible, immaterial, odorless, purple people eater--and that you just can't detect him. No matter how many purple people eater experts you bring in to give testimony about how they also have a feeling that it is in your kitchen. No evidence. No people eater. You cannot use the noise you heard as evidence of the people eater, because the noise is the phenomenon you are trying to explain.

You have to first find some evidence of something, and only then can you start to speculate about the nature of that something. The healed hand cannot itself be used as evidence, because that is the phenomenon you are trying to explain. You have detected nothing that could have healed the hand. You have therefore, no evidence to use to figure out what, if anything was the cause of the hand being healed. There might be something there, but since we cannot detect any evidence of it, we have to assume that there is nothing there.[2]

Until we can detect something, we have to assume nothing is there, just like we have to assume no purple people eater in the kitchen. If we want to keep on thinking that the hand is healed by a god, and there is nothing that came from outside the person, the god must by process of elimination, be inside the person herself.

QED
 2. Before people discovered the relationship between germs and illness, it would have been unreasonable to assume that invisible critters made people sick. 
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 28, 2014, 06:48:20 PM
But if something good happens and we don't know why but we like god why not just assume it was god?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 28, 2014, 06:51:30 PM
Or this......


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=REHV8LERhPw
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 28, 2014, 07:17:38 PM
^^^Especially seeing as Lukvance hasn't even disproved the null hypothesis[1] - that the person naturally recovered on their own.  Unlikely?  Sure.  But not impossible.  If nothing happened to them that we could detect, and yet they still healed, we can't assume that something happened to them just because they healed.
 1. frankly, I doubt he's even considered it
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 28, 2014, 08:08:18 PM
Oh no!

You had to go an post a picture of the purple people eater. Lukvance will say it exists and has to be  responsible for the noise in his kitchen. Therefore his god also exists and healed the lady's hand! Now you've done it, eh!.

Teeth grinding...

;D
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 28, 2014, 08:31:16 PM
Has luk even privided medical documentation that the hand was physically and permanently and completely non functional. would be a basic expectation in miracle science.

the one horned one eyed flying purple people eater if my greatest possible being that can move trees heal hands miraclize water and exists because the higgs particle exists..... i rest my case.



aside is it possible to do sumthin so the above clip has an embedded play mode so when on this page it is playing without clicking on it. of course if it did not want to violate our free will it would play itself.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on June 29, 2014, 03:05:54 AM
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
An external force? Coming from where?
A sound, a light? Coming from where?
Higher temperature or excess of radiation? Caused by what?
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
If it was a "god who is outside of human beings" who healed the lady's hand, something (kindly god thoughts, godly energy, godly forces, god rays, godly heat, holy spirit molecules, whatever) would have to come from that "god who is outside of human beings" to the hand. And that godly something would have to be different from regular old nothing. You with me so far?
Ok it would have come from God. But my question was : from where? 5 cm above the hand? outer space? Where do you expect the thing you would detect coming from?
I am pushing your reasoning to it's limit, I want to prove that it doesn't make sense. Could you please answer all the question I asked?
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
An external force? Coming from where?
A sound, a light? Coming from where?
Higher temperature or excess of radiation? Caused by what?
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 29, 2014, 03:20:08 AM
About 3cm to the left of the nearest higgs particle.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 29, 2014, 12:36:43 PM
Lukvance, where is Darth Vader located? Where is Peter Pan located? Where might you find Cinderella? 

I can't say where god is located, because we have no evidence that god is even real. Remember that basic problem? Give me some evidence that god is real, and some objective, scientific ways to know where he is, and maybe then we can track him down and show where he is located. After that, we can see if we can detect any force coming from where god is to somebody who is healed.

God, if he is real, is either outside of people's minds or he is inside of people's minds--we agree on that. If god healed  the lady's hand, the whatever (force, energy, etc.) that healed would have to come from wherever god is located, either outside of people's minds, or inside their minds. If he really exists, that is.

If nothing can be detected coming from anywhere to the hand, that is,  there is not any difference between the hand before and after except the healing, you cannot say what it was that healed the hand. You cannot say it was a god, anymore than you can say it was Darth Vader, Peter Pan or Cinderella. Or the guy waiting at the bus stop down the street.[1]

You can only say that the hand was healed. And you do not know how or why or by whom. Because, by definition, you have no evidence of anything healing the hand. You only have the healed hand. That is the phenomenon you are trying to find out about.
 1. However, it is far more likely to be the guy at the bus stop who healed the lady's hand than your god. Guess why!
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 29, 2014, 07:46:19 PM
Ok it would have come from God. But my question was : from where? 5 cm above the hand? outer space? Where do you expect the thing you would detect coming from?
The fact that you don't know how to answer this question - and in fact think it "doesn't make sense" to explain it as anything but your god's doing - demonstrates what her and I and others have been saying all along.  To put it simply, if your god is capable of interacting with physical reality, then physical reality will respond to his actions in some detectable and predictable way.  Your response is to simply assume that even though you don't know what to look for, your god is the best explanation, but you ultimately have no idea what actually caused those people to heal, assuming anything did.  The fact that scientists don't know just means that scientists don't know.

Quote from: Lukvance
I am pushing your reasoning to it's limit, I want to prove that it doesn't make sense. Could you please answer all the question I asked?
I think the only thing you're going to 'prove' is that you really don't understand this subject well enough to lecture other people on what does or doesn't make sense.

Quote from: Lukvance
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
Asking other people what they would expect to see or what they think would happen prejudices the whole thing.  You're the one saying it's God, now you get to figure out how to show that it is him to the skeptics and atheists here.

Quote from: Lukvance
An external force? Coming from where?
A sound, a light? Coming from where?
Higher temperature or excess of radiation? Caused by what?
That's your problem to figure out.  Saying "it's God who did it" when you don't have a single thing to point to that actually demonstrates 'God' to other people is irresponsible, intellectually dishonest, and just plain lazy.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on June 30, 2014, 02:54:42 AM
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
An external force? Coming from where?
A sound, a light? Coming from where?
Higher temperature or excess of radiation? Caused by what?
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
If it was a "god who is outside of human beings" who healed the lady's hand, something (kindly god thoughts, godly energy, godly forces, god rays, godly heat, holy spirit molecules, whatever) would have to come from that "god who is outside of human beings" to the hand. And that godly something would have to be different from regular old nothing. You with me so far?
Ok it would have come from God. But my question was : from where? 5 cm above the hand? outer space? Where do you expect the thing you would detect coming from?
I am pushing your reasoning to it's limit, I want to prove that it doesn't make sense. Could you please answer all the question I asked?
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?
An external force? Coming from where?
A sound, a light? Coming from where?
Higher temperature or excess of radiation? Caused by what?
How would you think it would happen if it was really God who did it?

This is like asking, "How do you think experiencing a magic unicorn from outer space would feel like?" The question makes no sense whatsoever since you have no "God" by which to compare any independently verifiable experiences. It's all just hear-say based on your theological assumptions. Since you haven't demonstrated that you, or anyone else, has had an actual "experience with God" (let alone even defined that term in any coherent way) the question is meaningless. You simply cannot rightly assert that a "God" thing is a sufficient explanation for someone getting better from cancer (or any other such phenomena). Since you haven't eliminated the other possibilities (and since "God did it" does no explaining at all) it is irrational to make such an assertion. It would be like finding my car being broken into and saying, "Hey look! My car was broken into! I had a dream last night of a fire breathing dragon. He must have done it!" Your assertion of a god doing the healing is just a placeholder for your own personal ignorance. There is a word for that you know:

CREDULITY
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 30, 2014, 03:10:18 AM
Next time i get a tough exam question i am just gonna write...."well lecturer how would you do it. tell me what you would write and if it is correct then that's my answer"
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on June 30, 2014, 03:51:46 PM
Next time i get a tough exam question i am just gonna write...."well lecturer how would you do it. tell me what you would write and if it is correct then that's my answer"

I know, right? Lukvance is the god expert here. How can he expect me to tell him how god heals an injured hand?

All I know is that if any healing of the hand is from god, it has to come from god to the hand somehow. If something is coming from god to the hand, that something will be detectable. If that something is not detectable, it is exactly the same as if it does not exist.

I can't figure out what part of this is confusing to Lukvance.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 30, 2014, 04:06:50 PM
Its like we are the ATHEISTS here. how can we explain the workings of god to a theist.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on June 30, 2014, 04:13:39 PM
Next time i get a tough exam question i am just gonna write...."well lecturer how would you do it. tell me what you would write and if it is correct then that's my answer"

I know, right? Lukvance is the god expert here. How can he expect me to tell him how god heals an injured hand?

All I know is that if any healing of the hand is from god, it has to come from god to the hand somehow. If something is coming from god to the hand, that something will be detectable. If that something is not detectable, it is exactly the same as if it does not exist.

I can't figure out what part of this is confusing to Lukvance.
Jst,Luk,and Skep are ALL Biblical theology experts,problem is they all view each other as WRONG. Does anybody else find this as amusing as I do?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on June 30, 2014, 04:26:09 PM
I don't like to laugh at others expense but....... yep.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 01, 2014, 01:43:50 PM
Lukvance, where is Darth Vader located? Where is Peter Pan located? Where might you find Cinderella? 

I can't say where god is located, because we have no evidence that god is even real. Remember that basic problem? Give me some evidence that god is real, and some objective, scientific ways to know where he is, and maybe then we can track him down and show where he is located. After that, we can see if we can detect any force coming from where god is to somebody who is healed.

God, if he is real, is either outside of people's minds or he is inside of people's minds--we agree on that. If god healed  the lady's hand, the whatever (force, energy, etc.) that healed would have to come from wherever god is located, either outside of people's minds, or inside their minds. If he really exists, that is.

If nothing can be detected coming from anywhere to the hand, that is,  there is not any difference between the hand before and after except the healing, you cannot say what it was that healed the hand. You cannot say it was a god, anymore than you can say it was Darth Vader, Peter Pan or Cinderella. Or the guy waiting at the bus stop down the street.[1]

You can only say that the hand was healed. And you do not know how or why or by whom. Because, by definition, you have no evidence of anything healing the hand. You only have the healed hand. That is the phenomenon you are trying to find out about.
 1. However, it is far more likely to be the guy at the bus stop who healed the lady's hand than your god. Guess why!
Here it is. You don't know what to expect because God is from an higher plane of existence than ours. All you can find is way that it wouldn't work not ways that it would.
Until you have a better solution you will have to accept the one who is supported by people that are way more verse in these mater than the both of us combined.
The argument of "we don't know where it's coming from" doesn't make sense because you don't know where it could be coming from. And if you knew then you would say it is not from God, it is from that source.
The scientific experiment is based on the fact that they looked for all other possible source (physical or spiritual) and concluded that their theory (it was God's doing) was right.
We have a hypothesis
We have tests available for this hypothesis
The event correspond to the hypothesis.
We draw the conclusion that the event was God's doing, hence God exist in the world outside human brain.
You disagree with me? Go ahead and ask people more verse than you in the scientific experimentation processes used for miracles.
I just talked to one not so long ago and he reassured me that the way miracles are declared is MORE STRICT than the ones used for other scientific hypothesis.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 01, 2014, 01:52:25 PM
Since Reply #203 I don't see much about how the scientific method I used does not satisfy your exigences for the existence of God outside your mind.
I read a lot of people trying to "disprove" the pertinence of miracles but no one actually working on miracle cases.
It's like trying to "disprove" the pertinence of using the LHC without actually knowing what it exactly do.

Ask question: “Why do things fall downwards?”
Do background research: “Hmmm, most things fall down to earth, but some go up!
Things that go up do so because the displacement buoyancy is greater than the force pulling them down.
What is that force that pulls things down? 

Construct hypothesis: It is something to do with relative masses.
This would explain planetary motion and why Australians do not fall off the earth!

Test with experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimetry#How_gravity_is_measured

Does it work? Yes

Analyse data and draw conclusions: http://www.universetoday.com/57713/gravity-formula/

Results align with hypothesis

Communicate results to Lukvance who will give us the formula for proving mathematically that God exists outside our minds.
Ask question: “Why do people get magically healed?”
Do background research: “Most people who get sick go the the hospital and get cured by following medical assistance, but some of them just pray and get cures without medical assistance.
What is that force that cure them?"

Construct hypothesis: It is something to do with God.
This would explain why God is living outside our head.

Test with experiment: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/how_lourdes_cures_recognized.pdf

Does it work? Yes

Analyse data and draw conclusions: http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

Results align with hypothesis

Communicate results to you : There is a force curing people from illness. This force is God.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 01, 2014, 03:33:27 PM
But Lukvance, you still seem to be missing this fact: you do not know what specifically has healed the hand or how it was done. In the absence of that very basic, very important information, you have inserted "god".

That insertion of "god" has not given any further information about what has healed the hand or how it was done. All we know is that we still don't know. Science does not have to "fill in the blanks" with stuff if we do not know something.

Scientifically, we can only say this: 

1) the hand just healed, seemingly by itself
2) we do not know how it happened, because we have eliminated all known causes 
3) we cannot detect anything that changed around the hand or inside the hand
4) the cause of the hand being healed is therefore currently unknown
Conclusion:
5) at this time, we do not know what healed the hand

That is what unknown means, Lukvance. It means you do not know. That does not mean you (or a priest) can make up any answer you like.

You could just as well fill in the "unknown" with a)"invisible, undetectable, purple people eater and part-time hand healer" or b)"Batman, who is so awesome he can miraculously heal hands from his underground lab in Gotham City".

Or you can fill in the "unknown" with c)"god, an invisible, undetectable, powerful magical being and part-time hand healer who is so awesome he can miraculously heal hands from his undisclosed location, wherever he is."

Explain the difference between statements a, b and c to us.

How can you jump into that unknown, and replace that lack of information with  "you do not know what it was, so therefore it had to be my version of god"? It does not make logical, scientific sense. You yourself have stated that some things thought to be miracles from god were later found to have a scientific explanation. Why assume that this is any different?[1]

Tomorrow the scientists might discover that the lady has a mutated gene in her blood that creates a substance that allowed her paralyzed hand to heal. They are able to synthesize the substance and it becomes available to medical doctors worldwide. Now everyone with paralysis becomes healed with a simple injection. Would the lady's healed hand still be a miracle from god?
 1. You keep stating that priests are the experts on miracle healings, because they pray and get information not available to scientists. If that is the case, how could "miracles" later have a scientific explanation? Did god give the priests wrong information? Or did the priests -gasp- make a mistake?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 01, 2014, 03:38:35 PM
^ Easy, i want it ti be god. it could be god, so it is god.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 01, 2014, 04:18:16 PM
How can you jump into that unknown, and replace that lack of information with  "you do not know what it was, so therefore it had to be my version of god"?
The scientific method didn't say it was unknown. You are the one saying it is despite what the scientific method proved you.

Quote
You yourself have stated that some things thought to be miracles from god were later found to have a scientific explanation. Why assume that this is any different?
For the same reason that some things thought to be the Higgs Boson were later found to not be it.
Quote
You keep stating that priests are the experts on miracle healings, because they pray and get information not available to scientists. If that is the case, how could "miracles" later have a scientific explanation? Did god give the priests wrong information? Or did the priests -gasp- make a mistake?
I don't remember saying that priest weren't scientists. They are a part of the scientific method I submitted to you. They are the experts when it comes to God maters.

Quote
Tomorrow the scientists might discover that the lady has a mutated gene in her blood that creates a substance that allowed her paralyzed hand to heal. They are able to synthesize the substance and it becomes available to medical doctors worldwide. Now everyone with paralysis becomes healed with a simple injection. Would the lady's healed hand still be a miracle from god?
They might, they might not. Until then it is a miracle. Like, until proven otherwise, the Higgs Boson has been found. We might (or might not) discover one day that it wasn't.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 01, 2014, 04:28:49 PM
So the "experts when it comes to god matters" are getting wrong information from god or are they making mistakes? I am referring to the miracles that later are explained with actual medical science, not with "prayer science". And the priests are not behaving scientifically if they fill in the space "unknown" with "god" after asking that same god if it was him or not. &)

This is different from discovering particles in physics. The scientists are not saying they know something unless they do. If they do not know, they say it is unknown. They do not ask the particle if it is the Higgs Boson or not and then tell everyone what it said.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 01, 2014, 04:37:46 PM
^ Lol, now the method of detecting the higgs particle is public domain. the particle hunters names and qualifications are public domain. the results of the higgs experiment are public domain.

all are verifiable and there is universal consensus on the qualifications of the people and the methods.



what are the names and qualifications and the published peer reviewed method and results of the miracle scientists.


can someone quote or repeat my question to luk as he has me on ignore cos he knows i know he is a fraud.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 01, 2014, 05:13:24 PM
It's all well and good to claim that God is on a higher plane of existence and that's why we can't detect him, but it does not change the fact we could detect him when he comes onto this 'plane' to do healings - or at least the means he uses to reach into this 'plane'.  And that leaves aside that arguing that God is on a higher plane is special pleading.

Unless Lukvance is prepared to show us actual evidence supporting this, any assertions he makes on the subject are essentially moot.  That's why his efforts to come up with a scientific hypothesis keep failing.  He's essentially begging the question by assuming that it's his god doing the healing without evidence to support it.  Trying to use the scientific method to justify his belief in miracles simply doesn't work, because it's not scientific to say "I don't know how this happened, so it must be a miracle from God" (which is an argument from ignorance).

Seriously, Lukvance, you've used at least three separate logical fallacies to support your belief.  Haven't you realized yet that when you engage in logical fallacies to support an argument, you only sabotage it?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 01, 2014, 05:29:04 PM
So the "experts when it comes to god matters" are getting wrong information from god or are they making mistakes? I am referring to the miracles that later are explained with actual medical science, not with "prayer science". And the priests are not behaving scientifically if they fill in the space "unknown" with "god" after asking that same god if it was him or not. &)
Until now I don't know of any miracles that has been "explained".

Quote
This is different from discovering particles in physics. The scientists are not saying they know something unless they do. If they do not know, they say it is unknown. They do not ask the particle if it is the Higgs Boson or not and then tell everyone what it said.
The same thing with miracle experts they don't say they know something unless they do. You are the one saying "they don't know". If they do not know, they say it is unknown. If they know it is not God's doing they say it is not God's doing.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 01, 2014, 05:31:27 PM
Seriously, Lukvance, you've used at least three separate logical fallacies to support your belief.  Haven't you realized yet that when you engage in logical fallacies to support an argument, you only sabotage it?
Maybe you should quote me and prove your point instead of accusing me without basis.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 01, 2014, 05:39:00 PM
That's how he weasels out by the time you finish explaining and quoting he will say he can't remember the question and aleady be on another subject.


what in gods name is a higher plane exactly. introduce an unknowable place to define an undectable being.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on July 01, 2014, 06:06:26 PM
Here it is. You don't know what to expect because God is from an higher plane of existence than ours. All you can find is way that it wouldn't work not ways that it would.
Until you have a better solution you will have to accept the one who is supported by people that are way more verse in these mater than the both of us combined.
The argument of "we don't know where it's coming from" doesn't make sense because you don't know where it could be coming from. And if you knew then you would say it is not from God, it is from that source.
The scientific experiment is based on the fact that they looked for all other possible source (physical or spiritual) and concluded that their theory (it was God's doing) was right.
We have a hypothesis
We have tests available for this hypothesis
The event correspond to the hypothesis.
We draw the conclusion that the event was God's doing, hence God exist in the world outside human brain.
You disagree with me? Go ahead and ask people more verse than you in the scientific experimentation processes used for miracles.
I just talked to one not so long ago and he reassured me that the way miracles are declared is MORE STRICT than the ones used for other scientific hypothesis.

And just like a Muslim, you are simply taking someone else's CLAIM and believing it (uncritically) because it caters to your confirmation bias. But that isn't a reliable way of determining what is true from what is false in regards to extraordinary claims. For such claims, you need MORE evidence not less (or hear-say) - especially since you are basing your entire life upon these types of claims (i.e. - they are not trivial for you).

Secondly, you are again making a CLAIM that these people are "more versed" but that doesn't mean anything because we have examined their arguments and they are fallacious as well. Would you believe a group of Scientologists (or astrologers) who claim to be "more versed" than you? Their arguments amount to the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity. They basically say, "Well, we don't have any other explanation as to how this happened. So therefore, we are attributing it to God!" I exposed this when I responded to the video you posted. That argument is patently fallacious and irrational. It is the premier fallacy of the religious (better known as the God of the Gaps fallacy) and it fails as a valid argument because it is an attempt to explain a mystery by appealing to yet another mystery, which does not actually do any real explaining. Once again, the ancients did this with lightening and thunder (saying Zeus did it). They were wrong for using such an argument, and so are these alleged "experts" of yours, and so are you (for the same reason).

Furthermore, you do not have independent confirmation (by disinterested parties) on these claims that are being made by your alleged "well versed" people. You have people who already believe making assertions that the yet unexplained rare event must be Yahweh. That is just an assumption that neither you nor they can backup with evidence or sound reasoning. But notice how they don't conclude it's Allah, or Mithra, or Osiris, or Zeus, or Odin? It doesn't matter what person makes an argument from ignorance. It's irrational regardless of the person who uses it. Hey, I could claim that I have "experts" on astrology. Just because I (or they) claim that they are experts does that mean their conclusions are true? It's time to start practicing your skepticism more consistently across the board with these extraordinary and miraculous claims.

NOTE: edited for grammar etc.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 01, 2014, 06:17:38 PM
Maybe you should quote me and prove your point instead of accusing me without basis.
There's plenty of basis for my statements - all three of the fallacies I stated are quite clearly present in your writings.  You just don't apparently possess the self-honesty to admit it.  Even if I did cite specifics, you'd find some excuse to disregard it and keep acting the same way you've acted all along.

By claiming that your god is on a higher plane without evidence, you are engaging in the logical fallacy known as special pleading; you have shown no reason to justify why your god must be on a higher plane, and thus there is no reason to assume that he is.

By assuming that your god exists despite the lack of evidence, you are engaging in the logical fallacy known as begging the question; you do not actually know that your god exists, yet you point to events in the real world (such as healings) as 'evidence' for his existence even though you don't know what actually causes those events.

By claiming that healings that don't have a scientific explanation are examples of your god at work, you are engaging in the logical fallacy known as arguing from ignorance; you do not actually know what causes those healings, yet because a few priests got together and said it was your god, you assume that it must be.

Do not try to insult my intelligence again by playing these stupid lawyer games so you can pretend you aren't actually engaging in logical fallacies every time you type a post.  The longer you go without admitting it, the more dishonest you show yourself to be.  I realize it can be very difficult to acknowledge or recognize when you engage in some logical fallacy, but you aren't going to get anywhere by telling people that they need to cite the exact words you used (so you can then lawyer some more).

Answer me honestly- what have you actually accomplished in your entire time on this forum?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 01, 2014, 06:28:03 PM
Lukvance, how can the priests determine for sure if a phenomenon is god's doing or not, if god operates on a different plane that cannot be detected by any physical means?

And, if you say that the priests ask god whether it was his miracle, and he tells them, you are going to get popped upside the head by the Higgs Boson. Because asking the phenomenon to explain itself is not scientific.

That would be like asking a cancerous tumor what kind it is, how it would like to be cured. :P
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 01, 2014, 07:25:04 PM
Would you believe a group of Scientologists (or astrologers) who claim to be "more versed" than you?
Yes.
Quote
But notice how they don't conclude it's Allah, or Mithra, or Osiris, or Zeus, or Odin?
Yes
Quote
Just because I (or they) claim that they are experts does that mean their conclusions are true?
If it fits the scientific method then yes.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 01, 2014, 07:26:03 PM
Answer me honestly- what have you actually accomplished in your entire time on this forum?
I hope more than you :)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 01, 2014, 07:28:40 PM
Lukvance, how can the priests determine for sure if a phenomenon is god's doing or not, if god operates on a different plane that cannot be detected by any physical means?
That is what you think. They (and I) disagree with you. They determine if it's from God by following very strict rules, you should ask one of them about it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 01, 2014, 07:30:58 PM
Lukvance, how can the priests determine for sure if a phenomenon is god's doing or not, if god operates on a different plane that cannot be detected by any physical means?
That is what you think. They (and I) disagree with you. They determine if it's from God by following very strict rules, you should ask one of them about it.
any proof for this statement?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jdawg70 on July 01, 2014, 07:35:43 PM
Lukvance, how can the priests determine for sure if a phenomenon is god's doing or not, if god operates on a different plane that cannot be detected by any physical means?
That is what you think. They (and I) disagree with you. They determine if it's from God by following very strict rules, you should ask one of them about it.
any proof for this statement?


Oh!  Oh!  I know!

Love and math!
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 01, 2014, 10:33:00 PM
I hope more than you :)
I ask for an honest answer and I get a platitude, and not even a very interesting one.

By the way, seeing as you totally ignored my support for my arguments - which were accurate paraphrases of what you've been saying all along - I see no reason to prolong this discussion any further.  If you aren't even willing to be honest enough to recognize your own faults when they're clearly presented to you, and if your response when asked what you think you've accomplished is a pointless statement about how you hope it was more than me, then I have no further interest in discussing anything else with you.

Frankly, I hope you get sent to the Emergency Room sub-forum, and soon - maybe once you have no choice but to actually address what other people are actually saying rather than using every bit of spin you can to try to turn it into what you want to talk about, you'll realize just how pointless and futile your method of 'discussion' truly is.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 01, 2014, 11:09:33 PM
Dig deep enough and the only proof theists have got are the voices in their heads.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 02, 2014, 10:51:23 AM
Lukvance, how can the priests determine for sure if a phenomenon is god's doing or not, if god operates on a different plane that cannot be detected by any physical means?
That is what you think. They (and I) disagree with you. They determine if it's from God by following very strict rules, you should ask one of them about it.

I asked how then the priests are able to tell that a healing was performed by god, if god cannot be detected, and is operating on a different plane of existence.  You did not answer the question.

You have stated many, many times that god is immaterial and cannot be detected by physical means, such as by using scientific instruments, measuring radiation, etc. You also told us that god is operating on a different plane of existence. Where exactly does god's plane of existence intersect with our human plane of existence? Wouldn't that intersection cause some kind of change in our physical reality and have to be detectable somehow?

You have also told us that the scientific way to determine that a healing was due to god was to eliminate all possible known ways that the hand could be healed. The only thing left would have to be your god.

But no. Your god is not the only thing left. Remember the cause of the healing is unknown. So, there are all kinds of possibilities besides your god. Other gods, for example. Or demons pretending to be your god. Or a mutation in the woman's genetic makeup that medical science cannot locate.

Unless you are now saying that your god can be detected and specifically identified by physical means? That is the opposite of what you have been telling us several weeks now.

The process of eliminating all possible known ways that the hand could be healed could also end up pointing to a shy benevolent alien being. How do the priests know for sure that the healing was not performed by a shy benevolent alien pretending to be god?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 02, 2014, 11:44:09 AM
I asked how then the priests are able to tell that a healing was performed by god, if god cannot be detected, and is operating on a different plane of existence.  You did not answer the question.
Yes I did : [...]They determine if it's from God by following very strict rules,

Lukvance,
You did not answer at all and I and other Mods are tired of your dodging the question.

You were asked how the priests know it is God and not something else.

The miracle is declared when "no other cause" can be found.

However, the only option is then "The Christian god did it."

________________________________________________________

How do we know that the unknown cause was not Thor or Zeus?

This is the question for you to answer.

GB Mod

PS
Quote
you should ask one of them about it.
That remark was unnecessary.

1. If you do not know, then you should say, "I do not know."

2. As far as I am aware, there are no Catholic Priests who are members of the site.

Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on July 02, 2014, 11:48:42 AM
Would you believe a group of Scientologists (or astrologers) who claim to be "more versed" than you?
Yes.

Remember, we are comparing apples to apples here. So (just like your Catholic "experts" want us to believe that these cases are in fact miracles from Yahweh) you would actually believe (if told by Scientologist "experts") that their claims validate their religion as true?? Is this what you are saying - because this sounds exactly like the implication you just made.

Quote
But notice how they don't conclude it's Allah, or Mithra, or Osiris, or Zeus, or Odin?
Yes

And why is that? Why don't these alleged "experts" on miracles conclude that a different deity than the one they personally believe in did it?

Quote
Just because I (or they) claim that they are experts does that mean their conclusions are true?
If it fits the scientific method then yes.

The scientific method cannot investigate claims to the supernatural. So you've just contradicted yourself. There is no way to independently verify if any one of the thousands of proposed "gods" was the actual cause of an unexplained occurrence. If you think so, then please demonstrate how exactly that would be done (without using an irrational argument from ignorance fallacy). 
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 02, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Just keep making shit up Luk,tell us are these dimensions like your God,scientifically undetectable?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 02, 2014, 11:57:46 AM
Lukvance, you still have not answered my questions. Let's try them one at a time.

How can anyone tell that it was your specific god did a healing, and that is was not an alien being with healing powers, pretending to be your specific god. What would be the difference? How would a person detect the difference? Remember, the alien is very powerful and knows how to masquerade as a god.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 02, 2014, 12:08:55 PM
Lukvance, you still have not answered my questions. Let's try them one at a time.

How can anyone tell that it was your specific god did a healing, and that is was not an alien being with healing powers, pretending to be your specific god. What would be the difference? How would a person detect the difference? Remember, the alien is very powerful and knows how to masquerade as a god.
your starting to sound like Skeptic,just put Demon in place of alien,,,BAM,skeptic
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 02, 2014, 12:18:20 PM
Lukvance, you still have not answered my questions. Let's try them one at a time.

How can anyone tell that it was your specific god did a healing, and that is was not an alien being with healing powers, pretending to be your specific god. What would be the difference? How would a person detect the difference? Remember, the alien is very powerful and knows how to masquerade as a god.
your starting to sound like Skeptic,just put Demon in place of alien,,,BAM,skeptic

Exactly.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on July 02, 2014, 12:24:18 PM
They determine if it's from God by following very strict rules, you should ask one of them about it.

This sounds like a cop out. Would you mind actually presenting those "strict rules"? From what I have seen so far their "rules" amount to nothing but a God of the Gaps fallacy (an argument from ignorance). Whenever they personally cannot explain something (which means they actually don't know what happened) they then ASSERT that it must have been their alleged "Yahweh" that did it (just like the lady in that video you posted said). She appealed to an argument from ignorance. So, as it turns out, your alleged "experts" are not experts at all. So that is yet another fallacy (argumentum ad vericundium - appeal to authority).

Now, do you have anything related to the scientific method I submitted?
I believe it is proof of the existence of God using the proceeding you accept as proof of something being real.
I don't find any difference between the findings of things related to the Higgs Boson and Miracles.
Both are theorized before the experiment.
Both are "discovered" by their interaction with our environment.
Both have an experiment that can be reproduced over and over and have the same result.

The reason you don't find any difference is likely because you do not understand how science works and what counts as science. Below is an article from the Smithsonian on the Higgs-Boson and the LHC. There you will find that the HB was predicted since the 60s and was confirmed by observation, confirmation by independent verification, and large amounts of explanatory tools like mathematics and professional physics papers giving intricate details (not arguments from ignorance). This is absolutely nothing like your alleged "miracle experts" who merely assert the supernatural when they don't have an explanation. So you have presented a false-analogy (another fallacy).

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-the-higgs-boson-was-found-4723520/?no-ist=&page=1
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Graybeard on July 02, 2014, 04:53:14 PM
Lukvance,

Please address the question at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg621948.html#msg621948


Thank you

GB Mod
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 02, 2014, 05:05:51 PM
Guys your being a bit harsh. luk has answered the question several times;


They followed very strict rules


same way they found the higgs particle




they are well versed in such matters



priests prayed to god


god told priests it was a miracle




etc


what more do you people want??
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 02, 2014, 05:09:49 PM
Lukvance,
Please address the question at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg621948.html#msg621948
Thank you
GB Mod

The question is :
" how the priests know it is God and not something else?"
The answer :
"By following a very strict set of rules" (Reply #375)

I really don't know what is missing? Maybe you want to know what are those rules? then
"ask a priest about it"  is the answer to your question.(Reply #375) I don't know all the rules I am not an expert in miracles that is why I directed you to one of the priest.
THIS WAS NOT AN UNNECESSARY ANSWER.

Now, can we go back on debunking the scientific method presented to you?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 02, 2014, 05:20:32 PM
Lukvance,
Please address the question at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg621948.html#msg621948
Thank you
GB Mod

The question is :
" how the priests know it is God and not something else?"
The answer :
"By following a very strict set of rules" (Reply #375)

I really don't know what is missing? Maybe you want to know what are those rules? then
"ask a priest about it"  is the answer to your question.(Reply #375) I don't know all the rules I am not an expert in miracles that is why I directed you to one of the priest.
THIS WAS NOT AN UNNECESSARY ANSWER.

Now, can we go back on debunking the scientific method presented to you?

Lukvance, I think that is the first honest response we have gotten from you in many, many posts here. We might be finally making some progress.  You really don't know how the priests can tell it is god who did the miracle. You trust that the priests know, somehow, even though, as you have stated many times, there is no way to tell what healed the hand, or how it was done.

Yet, the priests think they can tell for certain that it was the god they believe in, and not Satan pretending to be a good guy to fool them, or a different good god that knows how to heal hands, or a good alien being that can heal hands, or a mutation in the woman's blood that healed her hand. They have some special way of telling the difference.

Now here is the hard part, Lukvance:

What if the priests don't really know the difference, either?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on July 02, 2014, 05:21:58 PM
The question is :
" how the priests know it is God and not something else?"
The answer :
"By following a very strict set of rules" (Reply #375)

I really don't know what is missing? Maybe you want to know what are those rules? then
"ask a priest about it"  is the answer to your question.(Reply #375) I don't know all the rules I am not an expert in miracles that is why I directed you to one of the priest.
THIS WAS NOT AN UNNECESSARY ANSWER.

Now, can we go back on debunking the scientific method presented to you?

You attempted to draw an analogy between so-called "priest experts", who make claims about miracles, and physicists demonstrating the Higgs-Boson (which have explanatory power, detail of how it was discovered including math and physics, and successful and reliable predictions). And I rebutted your assertion above. You are drawing a false analogy because the paths to knowledge are completely different. One is making an argument from ignorance fallacy and the other is not (among other things). Your claimed people are not experts on "miracles" anymore than children are experts on Santa Claus. So again you are appealing to an authority that is not a real authority (argumentum ad vericundium). If you disagree then start actually demonstrating that you understand both the arguments being made by your own "authorities" and the science that is being done regarding the LHC and HB.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 02, 2014, 05:30:17 PM
Contact details of priests, i will contact them.

published method and results please we can all analyse them and grow together.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 02, 2014, 05:32:48 PM
So (just like your Catholic "experts" want us to believe that these cases are in fact miracles from Yahweh) you would actually believe (if told by Scientologist "experts") that their claims validate their religion as true?? Is this what you are saying - because this sounds exactly like the implication you just made.
I'm not sure I follow where you want to go with that line of question. If I asked a Scientologist expert about Scientology, I will believe his answer.
If a Scientologist expert tells me that a miracle (recognized by the church) is not really one, I won't believe him. That is not what he is expert in.
If that does not answer your question, please use an example so I could answer it more properly.

Quote
Why don't these alleged "experts" on miracles conclude that a different deity than the one they personally believe in did it?
They can conclude it is from another deity than the one they believe. All events are not miracles. I thought you understood that already.

Quote
There is no way to independently verify if any one of the thousands of proposed "gods" was the actual cause of an unexplained occurrence. If you think so, then please demonstrate how exactly that would be done (without using an irrational argument from ignorance fallacy).
That is what Reply #203 is about. Scientific method.
If you want to know more about how miracles are "stuff of science" I recommend you "Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World" from Jacalyn Duffin.
You have seen her testimony on Video already in this thread.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 02, 2014, 05:37:31 PM
Well i am an expert in BULLSHITOLOGY i says luk is full of BS right off the charts.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 02, 2014, 05:57:54 PM
What if the priests don't really know the difference, either?
It's like you are asking "What if your expert in molecule do not know what a molecule is?"
The answer is the same :"Find another expert"

You really don't know how the priests can tell it is god who did the miracle.
That's not true.
Let me get this straight once and for all :
"you have stated many times, there is no way to tell what healed the hand, or how it was done." Is not something I stated. It is something you keep repeating, like if you say it enough time people will forget that I never said such things. From the beginning (Reply #203) I stated that we had a hypothesis and that the result of the experiment confirmed the hypothesis. WE KNOW WHAT HEALED THE HAND!
I hope you won't make the same mistake again.

Oh and :
Lukvance, I think that is the first honest response we have gotten from you in many, many posts here. We might be finally making some progress.
Is a total lie. If Graybeard did not delete my answers you will realize that what I said in reply #390 is said since reply #375. Same honest response from the first time the question was asked.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 02, 2014, 06:14:57 PM
Without a clear method just because results agree with hypothesis may just mean yr hypothesis and your method are both shit.


and no you don't just go fishing for an expert that agrees with you.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 02, 2014, 06:19:40 PM
They determine if it's from God by following very strict rules, you should ask one of them about it.

This sounds like a cop out. Would you mind actually presenting those "strict rules"? From what I have seen so far their "rules" amount to nothing but a God of the Gaps fallacy (an argument from ignorance).

This article (http://sciencenordic.com/pope%E2%80%99s-scientists-study-miracles) explains the rigorous procedures involved:

Quote
”There has been talk of the Vatican having a kind of ’CIA’, which investigates alleged miracles. This may be true to a certain extent,” says Niels Christian Hvidt, an associate professor of theology at the University of Southern Denmark, who is also the director of the Danish Center for Research in Faith and Health... ...

"The miracle commission canonises saints in the Catholic Church. It’s sent out to investigate whether or not a person qualifies as a saint. Since saints are a central element of Catholicism, they need to be examined using the latest scientific methods".

To determine whether it’s really a miracle, the commission collects evidence and examines the healed person. These assessments are made in accordance with scientific methodology.

”The miracle commission consists of doctors who use the latest equipment to find an explanation to why a person has been healed,” he says.

”If, for instance, a brain tumour suddenly disappears after prayer, the doctors check the patient’s medical record and brain scans from before and after the tumour disappeared.”

A total of 80-90 physicians are affiliated with the Vatican’s miracle commission. They are all competent scientists and not all of them are necessarily Catholics.

When a potential miracle is reported to the Vatican, the report includes testimonies from astounded doctors who cannot find a natural explanation for the phenomenon in question.

The cardinals then pass these testimonies on to the miracle commission, which then sends a delegation to the location where the unexplainable event took place. If the delegates fail to find a satisfactory scientific explanation for the strange phenomenon, they can call in external experts.

“They do everything they can to find an explanation. At some point they may give up, and then the case is handed over to the Vatican’s theologians,” says the researcher.

“The theologians then examine the doctors’ testimonies for specific religious issues – e.g. trust and prayer. If such issues are present in the testimonies, they, together with the inexplicable nature of the incident, constitute the miracle.”

Could those rules be any more strict?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 02, 2014, 06:30:08 PM
No, Lukvance, the honesty was in admitting that you didn't know all the rules the priests used.  You did not include that in your earlier reply.

That's a critical point.  It means that you're simply accepting that these priests know what they're doing despite not knowing very much about it.  It also means that you have no way of checking to make sure the priests got it right; you either have to accept it or not accept it.  That is why we keep saying that this miracle-finding method of yours isn't scientific.  Science requires that other people be able to independently reproduce a set of results using the same procedures, but nobody can reproduce the results your priests came up with, because praying is entirely subjective.  There is no way to guarantee that any two people will get the same result by doing things the same way.

Now are you starting to understand why your approach isn't working?  You're talking to a bunch of skeptics and atheists and telling us that you've proved that these happenings at Lourdes are miracles because some priests prayed and consulted and stated that some of them were.  Yet we don't accept the authority of those priests to declare that.  Frankly, I doubt most non-Catholics would accept their authority to declare such a thing.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 02, 2014, 06:43:42 PM
Isn't the " hand" thing a bible story?..... Now that Luk has established  through research of  somebody with conformation bias ( the priests) we just need God to do it again,,,,with an amputee. Much like the return of Jesus we will be waiting a fuck of a long time for that to happen
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 02, 2014, 06:45:35 PM
No, Lukvance, the honesty was in admitting that you didn't know all the rules the priests used.  You did not include that in your earlier reply.

That's a critical point.  It means that you're simply accepting that these priests know what they're doing despite not knowing very much about it.  It also means that you have no way of checking to make sure the priests got it right; you either have to accept it or not accept it.  That is why we keep saying that this miracle-finding method of yours isn't scientific.  Science requires that other people be able to independently reproduce a set of results using the same procedures, but nobody can reproduce the results your priests came up with, because praying is entirely subjective.  There is no way to guarantee that any two people will get the same result by doing things the same way.

Now are you starting to understand why your approach isn't working?  You're talking to a bunch of skeptics and atheists and telling us that you've proved that these happenings at Lourdes are miracles because some priests prayed and consulted and stated that some of them were.  Yet we don't accept the authority of those priests to declare that.  Frankly, I doubt most non-Catholics would accept their authority to declare such a thing.
not to be a dick here,but the RCC has spent more time hiding kid raping priests than it ever has on science.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 02, 2014, 06:59:12 PM
No, Lukvance, the honesty was in admitting that you didn't know all the rules the priests used.  You did not include that in your earlier reply.
  It was implied with "ask a priest about it" instead of "ask me if you want to know".

Quote
Now are you starting to understand why your approach isn't working?  You're talking to a bunch of skeptics and atheists and telling us that you've proved that these happenings at Lourdes are miracles because some priests prayed and consulted and stated that some of them were.  Yet we don't accept the authority of those priests to declare that.  Frankly, I doubt most non-Catholics would accept their authority to declare such a thing.
That's the thing with Scientific method. You can reproduce it yourself if you want.
There are books written about the specifics of the scientific method used for miracles (the Reply #393 address that)
You can even use your own specialists!
You don't have to "accept the priests are right"

What approach isn't working? Working for who? I don't see any approach not working. Not even yours.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 02, 2014, 07:06:46 PM
Everybody wins,,,except you because you need to outright lie when you are painted in a  corner
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 02, 2014, 07:20:32 PM
If anyone can reproduce miracles its a wonder they haven't caught on more ....doctors meh!
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 02, 2014, 09:31:58 PM
It was implied with "ask a priest about it" instead of "ask me if you want to know".
I'll allow that you probably thought you were implying it, but implying things doesn't work very well on the Internet even between native speakers of the same language.  Add in language issues, and you're better off not trying to imply things at all.

Quote from: Lukvance
That's the thing with Scientific method. You can reproduce it yourself if you want.
Yes, that's the point of the scientific method.  If someone does an experiment, and I know how they did it, I can reproduce that experiment to see if I get the same results.

Quote from: Lukvance
There are books written about the specifics of the scientific method used for miracles (the Reply #393 address that)
You can even use your own specialists!
You don't have to "accept the priests are right"
The problem everyone here is having is not that we can't currently explain those happenings through science.  We get that there's no known explanation.  The problem is what your church does after that.  It is not scientific for theologians of any stripe to conclude that something was (or wasn't) a "miracle from God", especially when their criteria boils down to how much trust and prayer the person who was healed engaged in as well as it being inexplicable.

Here are the problems with that approach.  First off, by only being called in to explain the "inexplicable healings", those theologians are effectively only counting the hits and aren't paying any attention at all to all the misses - that is to say, the far vaster number of people who aren't healed, or who are healed through means explainable by science.  To be scientific, they would have to consider at least a statistical sampling of all the people who visited Lourdes, regardless of whether they were healed or not, or of whether the healings had an explanation or not.  With modern-day computing, they could make a database that included all the visitors who went to Lourdes in a year, plus their relevant medical history and other details about their case, and correlate things based on that.

Second, and directly related to the first, they are only considering people who pass some threshold of "trust and prayer" and who's healings are inexplicable.  They don't check to see if other people passed that threshold and were healed through explicable means, or who weren't healed.  That really is necessary for their approach to be scientific, otherwise you run the risk of making a false correlation.  You can't just look at the people who had inexplicable healings and only then consider the ones who had a 'sufficient' amount of trust and prayer; you also have to consider all the ones who had a similar amount of trust and prayer and check to see how many of them were healed (regardless of whether they were explicable or not).

Quote from: Lukvance
What approach isn't working? Working for who? I don't see any approach not working. Not even yours.
The approach your church is taking isn't working to explain those "inexplicable healings" as miracles.  It is also not a scientific approach, because declaring that unexplained events are miraculous due to "trust and prayer" is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination.  Trust and prayer are largely subjective things; you cannot quantify or measure them to determine how much of them a person actually has, the way you can measure how much mass something has, or how much electrical charge it has.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 02, 2014, 09:42:48 PM
^ Bad move on the hits and miss thing. Remember how the higgs bison is a higgs boson only if it is a higgs boson and if it isn't then its not. same as miracles.... boom god exists.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on July 03, 2014, 04:51:39 AM
So (just like your Catholic "experts" want us to believe that these cases are in fact miracles from Yahweh) you would actually believe (if told by Scientologist "experts") that their claims validate their religion as true?? Is this what you are saying - because this sounds exactly like the implication you just made.
I'm not sure I follow where you want to go with that line of question. If I asked a Scientologist expert about Scientology, I will believe his answer.
If a Scientologist expert tells me that a miracle (recognized by the church) is not really one, I won't believe him. That is not what he is expert in.
If that does not answer your question, please use an example so I could answer it more properly.

That isn't what I asked you, and furthermore you haven't demonstrated that these alleged people are "experts at miracles". Like every other claim you have made on this forum you merely asserted that they were experts but you provided absolutely ZERO good reason for us to think such a thing is the case. The question regarding Scientology was in a similar vein. Would you accept the mere assertions of Scientologist "experts" (similar to your alleged "experts") who say that some extraordinary events which took place in their buildings was proof that their religion is true and accurate?? Sure, you could reject that they are experts on "the miracles of Scientology" (just as I am doing with your claims) but that just proves my point even further - that you wouldn't take the Scientologists word for it (unlike you are doing with your religion). So you are a hypocrite - applying a double standard to suit your assumptions.

Luk, the difference here is in how you are approaching the quest for knowledge (i.e. - you are believing hear-say by people who you claim are "experts" at determining whether a miracle occurred). However, when we look beneath the surface all we find is an irrational argument from ignorance. Scientists and medical doctors (who do not claim to be "experts" at miracles) state that they do not have an explanation as to why a particular rare event occurred (which is where it should stop and you should have admitted ignorance). But then your theologians (the ones who want it to be a miracle and claim to be experts on miracles) ASSERT that a miracle must have occurred since there is "no other natural explanation". But just because there is no natural explanation for something does not mean it was supernatural! Did you get that?

The Argument from Ignorance fallacy is still irrational regardless of how many times you use it.

Quote
Why don't these alleged "experts" on miracles conclude that a different deity than the one they personally believe in did it?
They can conclude it is from another deity than the one they believe. All events are not miracles. I thought you understood that already.

You just missed the point. I didn't state what they could do. I stated what they actually do - which is, they assert that a miracle from Yahweh happened which further confirms their already believed theology. Do you not see the tremendous potential for confirmation bias here? There is no independent and disinterested verification that is possible here (unlike in science). Just because a group of people get together and make assertions does not mean their assertions are rational our sound. As others have noted, neither you nor they have any reliable method for determining 1) that a "God" is the cause of said event, 2) that said event was in fact a divine "miracle" and 3) that any one particular deity was the cause. It's merely an assertion out of ignorance. Since correlation does not equal causation you cannot assert that b/c people prayed, and then others got better, that it was a miracle - b/c it could have NOT been a miracle too.

Quote
There is no way to independently verify if any one of the thousands of proposed "gods" was the actual cause of an unexplained occurrence. If you think so, then please demonstrate how exactly that would be done (without using an irrational argument from ignorance fallacy).
That is what Reply #203 is about. Scientific method.
If you want to know more about how miracles are "stuff of science" I recommend you "Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World" from Jacalyn Duffin.
You have seen her testimony on Video already in this thread.

I have already responded to this and you ignored it. Jacalyn uses an argument from ignorance fallacy, just as you are doing, and she caters to her confirmation bias by using irrational arguments to prop up non-science. Her mere assertions (just like yours) are neither rational nor backed up by the evidence. Again, saying, "We don't have a natural explanation. So it must be supernatural." is a logical fallacy.

Here's a quote from your cherished "expert" on miracles.

Quote
"[In the face of medical miracles] medical scientists are not prepared to attribute the unknown to God . . . their discomfort also arises from a kind of faith - the absolute belief in the nontranscendence of earthly events. Like those who believe in God, they believe in the existence of a natural explanation, as yet unknown but open for discovery . . . But as Mark Corner wrote, 'there can be no certainty (since we obviously cannot anticipate what medical science will know in a century's time) that a miracle has taken place. At the same time, however, there is no certainty that a miracle has not taken place.' . . . only another form of belief sustains that interpretation" (page 189).

Notice her outright assumption from the outset (that these unexplained occurrences MUST be "miracles"). More importantly, she presents an irrational false dichotomy. That medical scientists must either believe the events are "miracles" or they must have "the absolute belief in the nontranscendence of earthly events". This is an epic fucking fail because these are not the only options. The third and most honest position is to admit (please repeat after me): WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! and leave it there. It is to admit ignorance instead of making assertions based upon logical fallacious reasoning. There is no "faith" there! So I'm sorry Luke, but just as I suspected your "experts" are not experts at all and what your argument amounts to is a rationalization of belief without evidence or good reasons (just like the ancients who said, "Hey! We don't know how that lightening and thunder stuff works. So Zeus did it!")

But you aren't comfortable with admitting ignorance on this, are you? You aren't happy admitting your own ignorance when it comes to claims by your church. Instead, you take the extremely arrogant approach by merely pretending to know what you in fact do not know. Well, I'm sorry, but an irrational argument is still an irrational argument regardless of how many times you try it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 03, 2014, 08:53:07 AM
They determine if it's from God by following very strict rules, you should ask one of them about it.

This sounds like a cop out. Would you mind actually presenting those "strict rules"? From what I have seen so far their "rules" amount to nothing but a God of the Gaps fallacy (an argument from ignorance).

This article (http://sciencenordic.com/pope%E2%80%99s-scientists-study-miracles) explains the rigorous procedures involved:

Quote
”There has been talk of the Vatican having a kind of ’CIA’, which investigates alleged miracles. This may be true to a certain extent,” says Niels Christian Hvidt, an associate professor of theology at the University of Southern Denmark, who is also the director of the Danish Center for Research in Faith and Health... ...

"The miracle commission canonises saints in the Catholic Church. It’s sent out to investigate whether or not a person qualifies as a saint. Since saints are a central element of Catholicism, they need to be examined using the latest scientific methods".

To determine whether it’s really a miracle, the commission collects evidence and examines the healed person. These assessments are made in accordance with scientific methodology.

”The miracle commission consists of doctors who use the latest equipment to find an explanation to why a person has been healed,” he says.

”If, for instance, a brain tumour suddenly disappears after prayer, the doctors check the patient’s medical record and brain scans from before and after the tumour disappeared.”

A total of 80-90 physicians are affiliated with the Vatican’s miracle commission. They are all competent scientists and not all of them are necessarily Catholics.

When a potential miracle is reported to the Vatican, the report includes testimonies from astounded doctors who cannot find a natural explanation for the phenomenon in question.

The cardinals then pass these testimonies on to the miracle commission, which then sends a delegation to the location where the unexplainable event took place. If the delegates fail to find a satisfactory scientific explanation for the strange phenomenon, they can call in external experts.

“They do everything they can to find an explanation. At some point they may give up, and then the case is handed over to the Vatican’s theologians,” says the researcher.

“The theologians then examine the doctors’ testimonies for specific religious issues – e.g. trust and prayer. If such issues are present in the testimonies, they, together with the inexplicable nature of the incident, constitute the miracle.”

Could those rules be any more strict?
a spontaneous remission =a miracle? Hardly,these panels main goals are to uphold the theologies in their church....no saints= no miracles= no dogma

 Has there been a double blind study,where spontaneous remission where no prayer was involved? How about those who were prayed over and died anyways
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 03, 2014, 09:20:55 AM
^ Bad move on the hits and miss thing. Remember how the higgs bison is a higgs boson only if it is a higgs boson and if it isn't then its not. same as miracles.... boom god exists.
Do you always have to comment on everything?  Especially when you don't seem to have understood the point I was trying to make?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 03, 2014, 09:55:04 AM
Regarding [wiki]Jacalyn Duffin[/wiki], here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia page about her tesimony on a 'miracle'.

Quote
Upon her return to Canada, Duffin settled in Ottawa where she took on a contract to review a set of slides, which she assumed were to be used in a malpractice suit.[2] She was given no information about the patient, but identified the young woman as suffering from acute myeloblastic leukemia, “the most aggressive leukemia known.”[2] As the slides were from some 5+ years earlier, she assumed the patient as deceased, as that form of leukemia kills usually within two years. Instead, she found that the patient had, after a relapse, gone into remission and was doing well some five years on. Duffin's testimony was to be used by the Vatican to determine whether Marie-Marguerite d'Youville (1701 – 1771) had performed a miracle and was worthy of canonization. According to Duffin, “They never asked me to say this was a miracle. They wanted to know if I had a scientific explanation for why this patient was still alive. I realized they weren’t asking me to endorse their beliefs. They didn’t care if I was a believer or not, they cared about the science.”[2]
So, first off, she was not told the actual reason why they wanted her to review those slides until after she had reviewed them.  This may have been intended to avoid prejudicing her, but it was misleading at the very least.  In a situation like this, full disclosure from the outset is the best course of action.

Second, this seriously begs the question of how a dead woman, no matter how she might have acted in her life, could have performed any miracle at all on someone from the modern day.

Third, knowing the Vatican's procedure for vetting miracles does not leave me with any confidence that they truly are any sort of experts in it.

Finally, as I and others have stated repeatedly, not having a scientific explanation for something simply means that there's no known explanation for it.  It is incorrect to go from "unexplained" to "supernatural", as that begs the question of, if we do not know how to explain it, how do we know it's supernatural?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Astreja on July 03, 2014, 10:12:49 AM
... not having a scientific explanation for something simply means that there's no known explanation for it.  It is incorrect to go from "unexplained" to "supernatural", as that begs the question of, if we do not know how to explain it, how do we know it's supernatural?

Not only that, but pasting over an unexplained healing event with a "Miracle!" sticker does a grave disservice to other people afflicted with the same condition.  If persons A, B and C have a disease and person B gets better spontaneously, you do *not* call in a flashmob of Catholic priests.  What you do is analyze all three patients in more detail and try to identify what's different about person B -- And maybe find something that cures all three, not just the one who happened to pray to St. Bronchiectasia of Wheeze.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 03, 2014, 11:57:52 AM
^If nothing else, even if it was a miracle (which I am not conceding), it would still be possible to figure out what actually happened and thus be able to reproduce it using science, since it's a thing that happened in the natural world.

Instead, we get people spending tons of money yearly to go to places like Lourdes, hoping against hope that they'll be one of the lucky few to be blessed with miraculous healing.  If even a tenth of the total money they spent was funneled to causes which sought to find cures for their ailments, who knows how many of the people who visit there wouldn't have to because science could treat them?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 03, 2014, 11:59:35 AM
^^^^Excellent point there.

Calling something a "miracle healing from god" is scientifically, the same as saying "we don't have any real idea how the person got better". That is useless to the person who got the miracle, as well as to the people who did not get the miracle. Because all the people did the same stuff and only one got a miracle from god, and nobody knows why.

Miracles from god are not predictable or repeatable, because, as Lukvance has told us, god alone decides, randomly, to grant miracles in some, but by no means all, cases. Miracles, by definition, then, are not scientific.

Lukvance, the scientific method means that anyone who performs the experiment will get the same result. Not only Catholics. Not only priests. Anyone. A mixed group of JW's, atheists, pagans, Hindus and Baptists who perform the right rituals should be able to get the same number of miracle healings from god as a group of Catholics. That is science. Anyone can play.

Religious miracles are the opposite of that. Only Catholics who pray to the correct deity, or people who believe in the correct deity, or who have gotten this deity's special attention somehow will get the result. Asking a priest after the fact if their god did a miracle is not a scientific way to investigate something.

However, all phenomena can be easily examined scientifically to see if they are really happening or not. All you have to do to examine miracles scientifically is to be able to count accurately.

If miracles are going to be analyzed scientifically, you should be able to correlate x number of prayers by y number of people in z location = 1 miracle healing. Or you would find that prayers by people baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church are x times more likely to result in a miracle healing than prayers by atheists. Scientifically, there should be some sign that believing in god,  or being at Lourdes, or having a priest around increases the likelihood of a miracle healing.

Instead, scientifically, we find that the number of healings attributed to god at the most popular shrine in Christianity is below the level of statistical probability. That means that at least as many people will get healed "miraculously" by doing nothing at all! God indeed works in mysterious ways. Considering that some people will get worse by traveling to the shrine, we would probably find that there are actually more "miracle healings" by people who stay home and don't do anything different. I am not just dissing on Catholics-- I am willing to bet money that the same is true of every religious holy site in every religion.[1]

That information should be publicized outside of the shrine at Lourdes, if the Catholics are honest and are really being scientific. But they do not do this. Wonder why that would be?

The sign at Lourdes should say this:

"Attention All Sick Catholic People! Please stop coming to Lourdes.  If you are due for a miracle, God can find you wherever you are. If you are not due for a miracle, coming here will not help you. It may even make you worse off. Stay home. Spend the money you would have used to come here in your local community. Sincerely, The Catholic Church." 

Since there is no sign like that, what can we conclude? Maybe the Catholic Church and the city of Lourdes are not really scientific. Maybe they want people to keep coming there, even though the overwhelming majority will not get any miracles. Many will even be worse off.

What could possibly be the reason there is no sign telling the truth?
 1. Seriously ill Hindus who travel to bathe in the sacred Ganges River will probably have a lower rate of miracle healings than those who just stay home and do nothing, once you control for the higher income of the pilgrims, contact with the contaminated germ-filled water in the river, etc.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 03, 2014, 01:51:03 PM
But then your theologians (the ones who want it to be a miracle and claim to be experts on miracles) ASSERT that a miracle must have occurred since there is "no other natural explanation". But just because there is no natural explanation for something does not mean it was supernatural! Did you get that?
Yes.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 03, 2014, 02:05:57 PM
You might have misunderstood me. When I said the priests can refuse the event as a miracle I meant that some events (I believe most of them) have been refused and are not miracle EVEN IF THERE IS NO "SCIENTIFIC" EXPLANATION ON HOW THE PERSON WAS CURED.
I still maintain that the findings of miracle is a scientific process. You are assuming that I am wrong without proving it.

Do you realize how you are all spitting on lives of people. Saying that their opinion is worth nothing because you don't want to believe doesn't make their opinion false. They gave their lives to the discerning of miracles. As long as you haven't talk to one, you shouldn't spit on their value just because they do not align with yours.
If you prefer using other means of discerning if this miracle is from God or not YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO! The result will be the same. That's the magic of the Scientific method.
You all seem to have reduced greatly the work done by priests and scientists when they are discerning if this is a miracle or not. Have anyone of you talked with one? Read one of their books?
If not, you are arguing against things you don't know about. You are the ones using the "ignorance fallacy".

The scientific method that I presented you allows you to reproduce the experiment by yourself. Saying that we must take into account the people who were not cured is like saying we must take into account all those other atoms in the Universe that are not Higgs Boson. OF COURSE THE EXPERIMENT TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT.
That does not make the finding of a miracle less valid. That doesn't make the finding a miracle a lesser proof of the existence of God outside our body.
And that is all this discussion is about. It is not about if miracles are fair, if miracles are done exactly the way you want them to be done.(even if apparently you don't have a clue of how it is supposed to happen, you are just criticizing the way it does)
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on July 03, 2014, 02:09:38 PM
You might have misunderstood me. When I said the priests can refuse the event as a miracle I meant that some events (I believe most of them) have been refused and are not miracle EVEN IF THERE IS NO "SCIENTIFIC" EXPLANATION ON HOW THE PERSON WAS CURED.
I still maintain that the findings of miracle is a scientific process. You are assuming that I am wrong without proving it.

You just committed another logical fallacy, called Shifting the Burden of Proof. You are the one making the claims that these events were "miracles". So the burden of proof is on YOU. We do not just believe everything until proven false. That would be absurd and lead to contradictions and irrational beliefs. Instead (in science) we disbelieve claims until demonstrated to be true. You have not demonstrated your claims. You have merely CLAIMED them over and over. So stop pretending that you are being scientific (or rational) when you keep making these irrational arguments.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: median on July 03, 2014, 02:26:21 PM
Do you realize how you are all spitting on lives of people. Saying that their opinion is worth nothing because you don't want to believe doesn't make their opinion false. They gave their lives to the discerning of miracles. As long as you haven't talk to one, you shouldn't spit on their value just because they do not align with yours.
If you prefer using other means of discerning if this miracle is from God or not YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO! The result will be the same. That's the magic of the Scientific method.
You all seem to have reduced greatly the work done by priests and scientists when they are discerning if this is a miracle or not. Have anyone of you talked with one? Read one of their books?
If not, you are arguing against things you don't know about. You are the ones using the "ignorance fallacy".

First, you are using an appeal to emotion fallacy by saying we are "spitting" on peoples lives. That is irrational (once again). It doesn't matter if a response hurts someones feelings b/c that is irrelevant to the argument. Second, we didn't say their "opinion is worth nothing". We said they (like you) are using irrational arguments and are therefore in error. Muslims spend their lives dedicated to their beliefs. SO WHAT! It doesn't make it true just because you dedicate your life to something. Again, the burden of proof is on you (and them) and so far that burden has not been met.

Second, you have misrepresented what the argument from ignorance fallacy actually is. So you should start there. Go research what the fallacy actually states because you keep trying to use it and it fails every time. It makes no difference whatsoever if we haven't talked to one of these alleged "scholars". We can read their statements and articles online and evaluate their arguments (as we have already done). Arguments stand or fall on their own merits and the ones you keep presenting are fallacious. They therefore should be corrected.

Again, if you don't know how something happened (and there is no explanation) then you don't get to just ASSERT that it was a miracle - because that would be pretending to know something that you do not know. And that method is unreliable for separating fact from fiction (which is what we've been saying all along).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/ (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/)


The scientific method that I presented you allows you to reproduce the experiment by yourself. Saying that we must take into account the people who were not cured is like saying we must take into account all those other atoms in the Universe that are not Higgs Boson. OF COURSE THE EXPERIMENT TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT.
That does not make the finding of a miracle less valid. That doesn't make the finding a miracle a lesser proof of the existence of God outside our body.
And that is all this discussion is about. It is not about if miracles are fair, if miracles are done exactly the way you want them to be done.(even if apparently you don't have a clue of how it is supposed to happen, you are just criticizing the way it does)

What you are showing here is that you know absolutely NOTHING about how science works and how experiments are reproduced (or you are suppressing it). You cannot reproduce an alleged "miracle" because the things that are taking place (such as someone getting better) is all the evidence you have!!! The fallacious conclusion you keep trying to draw (that a miracle occurred) is the thing in error. You simply cannot get to the conclusion that something was a "miracle" by trying to equate causation from correlation. Do you not know this? CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION! Just because two events happen near each other does NOT mean that one caused the other. You do not know what caused a certain person to get better - and as others here have noted, if there is no current explanation then there is no current explanation! Your ASSERTION of "miracle" doesn't make it so, regardless of how much you WANT it to be a miracle to confirm your religious assumptions. 
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 03, 2014, 03:19:25 PM
Somebody who wants to see a "miracle", will see it that way. It is in any Priests own self interest to find a miracle,where a science observation will come up with " I don't know" or a "not enough evidence to figure out all the variables".

 Take out the priest or religious article or interest and the theologists will come up with a similar answer.  "Goddidit" is the answer they seek,and the answer they will inevitably find.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Jag on July 03, 2014, 03:21:04 PM
To support median's point, I submi the following, for lukvance's edification.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,27022.msg622182.html#msg622182

Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 03, 2014, 04:00:24 PM
Can you understand, Lukvance, that science is about investigating things that happen? A hand was paralyzed. Now it is healed. How did it get healed? That is all that the scientific investigation would be about.

After investigating everything that scientists know, and finding nothing that could have caused the hand to be healed, that is the end of the scientific investigation. Period. Science is done.

If a religion wants to take over at that point and declare that god healed the hand through invisible magic godly miracle juice, that it the business (and I use the term intentionally) of the religion.

But there is no way you can go back and retrofit the situation and call what the religious people have done (said that the hand was healed by god and that it was a miracle) as scientific. Period. They have done religion, not science.

If you want to have a scientific investigation into the existence of miracles, that would be very different from what you have described. Because science has not yet established that miracle healings by a particular god are real.[1]

1) Science requires a control group that did not get whatever miracle, especially when you are dealing with human subjects and medical phenomena. That is basic investigative protocol.

2) Science requires a hypothesis to be tested that compares a miracle group with that non-miracle control group, where the hypothesis is designed to show that the miracle did not happen

3) only when you have overcome 1) and 2) can you even begin to call what happened scientific.

It is really important to understand 2) above. you have to have people who are willing to follow the evidence, even if it shows that miracles do not exist. Remember, whether or not miracles exist is the question that you are trying to scientifically investigate. You cannot call a miracle investigation scientific if the people who are investigating already believe in the existence of miracles![2]

The final scientific designation has to be made by independent investigators who are equally willing to say:
a) "According to our statistical analysis, miracles apparently do not exist," or

b) "According to our statistical analysis, miracles apparently do exist, and we need to further investigate the phenomena of apparent miracles."

I can't imagine that a group of Catholic priests are willing to say a) no matter what the evidence shows. They already believe in miracles, before they even start the investigation. So of course they are willing to say that a given healing was a miracle. That is most definitely not scientific.

Don't ignore the procedures commonly used in basic medical research (does this treatment work or not) and try to change the subject by introducing advanced discoveries in theoretical physics (does the Higgs Boson exist or not). That is only a way to confuse the issue. I get so irritated when religious folks try to go all physics on a topic when they can't shoehorn their god into a situation any other way.
 1. Science has not even established that gods are real, which is why there are atheists! ;D
 2. That would be like having a Sasquatch investigation program, but the team of people who make the final decision about whether x, y or z indicates a Sasquatch are all members of the either the "We Love You, Bigfoot Club", or the "Sasquatch Is Real Fan Club".
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 03, 2014, 04:57:25 PM
All of your arguments are based on your beliefs.

I used the scientific method presented to me. I am still waiting for one flaw to be underlined on that method that I presented in Reply #203.
You can claim that you already "proven" it flawed. But you only did it in your head. Not on paper.

Mostly what makes your claims useless is that they are based on your beliefs and not on reality. Mine are supported by countless papers and people that are involved each year in miracles.
That is why I proposed to you that you talked directly to people involved with the miracle process, so you can educate yourself on the subject before saying that it is not science.

I am pretty sure that I can find the same flaws in the method that has been presented by Graybeard about gravity that you find about the one I presented about the action of God in the world.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 03, 2014, 05:58:59 PM
You are catching up to Skeptic with these stupid statements,you need to expand your horizons.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 03, 2014, 06:53:08 PM
You might have misunderstood me. When I said the priests can refuse the event as a miracle I meant that some events (I believe most of them) have been refused and are not miracle EVEN IF THERE IS NO "SCIENTIFIC" EXPLANATION ON HOW THE PERSON WAS CURED.
We get it, Lukvance.  The problem is that their (meaning the Catholic theologians who apparently decide whether it's a miracle) standards are still arbitrary and not scientific.  That is to say, they're ignoring every single person who was healed through some known means or who was not healed, and therefore are sabotaging their own process.

Quote from: Lukvance
I still maintain that the findings of miracle is a scientific process. You are assuming that I am wrong without proving it.
No, we're rejecting your unsupported conclusion that you can find 'miracles' via science by ruling out all known conclusions and then passing it over to some theologians to get their opinion of the matter.  And when it comes right down to it, they don't actually know if it is a miracle.  They're simply saying that they think it is one, but someone else who reviews it (especially someone else of a different religion, or even a different Christian sect) might well come to a different conclusion.  That means they're relying on subjective reasoning, and the whole point of science is to not have to use subjective reasoning in the first place.

Quote from: Lukvance
Do you realize how you are all spitting on lives of people. Saying that their opinion is worth nothing because you don't want to believe doesn't make their opinion false. They gave their lives to the discerning of miracles. As long as you haven't talk to one, you shouldn't spit on their value just because they do not align with yours.
I did not ever say their opinions were worth nothing; don't presume to put words in my mouth.  What I am saying is that their opinions are not scientific, but subjective.  Subjective opinions are often still worthwhile for various things, but they're no more scientific than someone dressed up in a lab coat is a scientist.

Quote from: Lukvance
If you prefer using other means of discerning if this miracle is from God or not YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO! The result will be the same. That's the magic of the Scientific method.
Once again you're demonstrating that you don't really understand how the scientific method works.  The only thing that was demonstrated scientifically (at least as far as that goes) is that we don't know how to explain what happened.  The moment your church hands this off to a group of its theologians, it stops being scientific, because they're looking at subjective factors rather than objective ones.  What they're doing is a lot like if someone tried to do a study on what some unknown food tasted like; you couldn't scientifically prove what it tasted like because it would be subjective.  Are you starting to understand the problem here?  You can call this scientific all you want, but it won't actually make it scientific.

Quote from: Lukvance
You all seem to have reduced greatly the work done by priests and scientists when they are discerning if this is a miracle or not. Have anyone of you talked with one? Read one of their books?
If not, you are arguing against things you don't know about. You are the ones using the "ignorance fallacy".
We don't have to interview them or read their books to determine whether their methods are scientific or not.  Now, if we simply dismissed everything they said, then you might have a point, but I for one have no problem with their opinion that those are miracles from God.  I just have a problem with you or anyone stating that those opinions are scientific when the determining factors of those opinions were subjective.

Quote from: Lukvance
The scientific method that I presented you allows you to reproduce the experiment by yourself. Saying that we must take into account the people who were not cured is like saying we must take into account all those other atoms in the Universe that are not Higgs Boson. OF COURSE THE EXPERIMENT TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT.
Any experiment which doesn't take so-called 'unrelated' things into account (and not by looking at them long enough to tell that they aren't what the experiments are looking for) is not scientific.  How can you have been discussing this for more than a month with people who have been repeatedly trying to explain it to you and still not grasp this?  Scientists have to control for the things they aren't investigating to make sure that those things don't actually have some influence on what they are investigating.  That's why your method isn't scientific - because it makes no effort to actually control most of the variables.  The only people who are investigated are those who are presumably healed, and if there ends up being a scientific explanation for it, they're excluded and not investigated any further.

What your method does is act as a sorting method to exclude every case except for the ones that are unexplainable.  And then your theologians get in on the act, and do some further sorting.  But that very sorting is what prevents it from being scientific - in an experiment, scientists don't arbitrarily exclude all the instances where they didn't find what they were looking for, as you seem to think.  That's not what controlling the variables is about.  It's about making sure that nothing influences the experiment except what scientists want to influence it.  You can't do that by excluding everything except where you found what you were looking for, because one of those exclusions could have some of the data you need to explain things scientifically, even if they don't seem to.  Science is full of examples where a scientist found a clue somewhere they weren't expecting and made a breakthrough because of it.

Quote from: Lukvance
That does not make the finding of a miracle less valid. That doesn't make the finding a miracle a lesser proof of the existence of God outside our body.
It makes it just as valid as any opinion - no more and no less.  And it proves nothing, because science cannot prove that something is so, only that something is not so.

Quote from: Lukvance
And that is all this discussion is about. It is not about if miracles are fair, if miracles are done exactly the way you want them to be done.(even if apparently you don't have a clue of how it is supposed to happen, you are just criticizing the way it does)
If you take nothing else away from this discussion, Lukvance, then at least understand that you're dealing with some highly intelligent people here.  I'll bet that's why you're having so much trouble - you're probably quite a bit smarter than most people you argue with, so you're not used to dealing with people who are on or above your level.  The tactics you can use on people who aren't as smart as you don't work very well when the person has enough intellect to recognize where you're trying to go and acts to preempt it to avoid wasting time.

Honestly, you seem fairly smart to me, but there's a problem that a lot of smart people have.  If someone disagrees with you, the tendency is to think that person is stupid, or at least didn't understand.  I've done that on quite a few occasions myself, and one thing I've had to learn the hard way is that smart people usually do understand what you're trying to get across; if they don't agree, it isn't because they didn't understand, but because there's some assumption you're making that you can't see but they can.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 03, 2014, 07:08:15 PM
Luk,how does a cut on a body part heal?,Miracle? Thousands of years of evolution has helped us cope with things as severe as a broken limb healing itself......now if only your God would heal an amputee.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Astreja on July 04, 2014, 12:31:15 AM
I'd like to point out that a "miracle" is what's known as a "diagnosis of exclusion."  In other words, it's a working hypothesis that's used after other possibilities have been ruled out.

As soon as one starts trawling for miracles in a sea of unexplained events, one has sailed out of the scientific realm and into the world of faith.  It is by faith, not science, that one  gives the credit to one's own god and not to another.  For instance, if three people of different beliefs have an amazing and unlikely escape from a burning building, I'd surmise that they would thank the god(s) of their own religions.  Can they all be right?  Possible, but unlikely.  Can they all be wrong?  Yes.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 04, 2014, 12:39:21 AM
All of your arguments are based on your beliefs.
Actually, all arguments are based on beliefs.  Yours are no exception.

Quote from: Lukvance
I used the scientific method presented to me. I am still waiting for one flaw to be underlined on that method that I presented in Reply #203.
You can claim that you already "proven" it flawed. But you only did it in your head. Not on paper.
The method you concocted in #203 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg619042.html#msg619042) depends on circular reasoning.  You stated your hypothesis was that God had something to do with the force that cured people from illnesses, and in your conclusion, you stated that the force that cured people from illnesses was God.  Specifically[1], you stated that "some people just pray and get cured without medical assistance", and asked "what is the force that cured them?"  Then, you stated your hypothesis, that "it is something to do with God".  After going through your reasoning, you concluded, "there is a force curing people from illness; that force is God".

Classical [wiki]circular reasoning[/wiki] - you assumed that your conclusion (that some force cured people from illness) was true as part of your premise (that some force cured people from illness).  Understand that this logical fallacy, by itself, disqualifies your entire method.  Until you correct this flawed reasoning, there is no point to going further into your argument.  That doesn't even touch upon the whole "magical healing" thing, which is another big problem - in fact, it's begging the question, since you don't actually know that they were magically healed.  You just know that they healed without apparent medical intervention.

I'm going to give you a freebie.  Your initial question should not be "why do some people magically heal?", as that presupposes that there was magical healing involved (and thus causes the circular reasoning fallacy).  It should be something like, "why do some people heal from incurable diseases or conditions without medical intervention?"  The reason it's important to specify incurable diseases and conditions is because people naturally heal; the fact that something is considered incurable by medical science generally means that it doesn't heal naturally.

Quote from: Lukvance
Mostly what makes your claims useless is that they are based on your beliefs and not on reality. Mine are supported by countless papers and people that are involved each year in miracles.
That is why I proposed to you that you talked directly to people involved with the miracle process, so you can educate yourself on the subject before saying that it is not science.
There are plenty of studies showing that praying for someone who's ill has no more effect than not praying for them, and if they know people are praying for them, there's even a negative effect.  And to be blunt, it is not the scientists and doctors who investigate these things that I have an issue with.  It is the theologians and priests who apparently think it's safe to give their god the credit if science can't explain it, and thus are committing the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Quote from: Lukvance
I am pretty sure that I can find the same flaws in the method that has been presented by Graybeard about gravity that you find about the one I presented about the action of God in the world.
Don't make claims like this before you actually try, as I am quite certain that you will not be able to apply the circular reasoning fallacy to Graybeard's post on gravity.
 1. I am paraphrasing slightly, since the way you originally wrote it is not conducive to easy quoting, and I fixed a couple of minor errors too.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 01:55:55 AM
Once again you're demonstrating that you don't really understand how the scientific method works.  The only thing that was demonstrated scientifically (at least as far as that goes) is that we don't know how to explain what happened.  The moment your church hands this off to a group of its theologians, it stops being scientific, because they're looking at subjective factors rather than objective ones.  What they're doing is a lot like if someone tried to do a study on what some unknown food tasted like; you couldn't scientifically prove what it tasted like because it would be subjective.  Are you starting to understand the problem here?  You can call this scientific all you want, but it won't actually make it scientific.
You don't have to hand it to the theologians. You, yourself, alone could follow the sames rules these theologians follow and discern by yourself if it is from God or from some other deity. You could learn how these rules came by even if it takes a lifetime to do so, but ultimately you could learn them and use them to discern. When you have your answer you MUST present it to other theologians who will agree with your conclusion... or not. That's how science work, that's how miracles work too.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 07, 2014, 02:01:14 AM
What rules? miracles sometimes happen to some people.


theologians can neither say when why or how. they just say it was their god.

how is that science?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 02:07:51 AM
The method you concocted in #203 depends on circular reasoning.  You stated your hypothesis was that God had something to do with the force that cured people from illnesses, and in your conclusion, you stated that the force that cured people from illnesses was God.  Specifically[1], you stated that "some people just pray and get cured without medical assistance", and asked "what is the force that cured them?"  Then, you stated your hypothesis, that "it is something to do with God".  After going through your reasoning, you concluded, "there is a force curing people from illness; that force is God".
Apparently, The method concocted in #199 by Graybeard also depends on circular reasoning.  His stated hypothesis was that It is something to do with relative masses, and in his conclusion, he stated that the force was Gravity (which is something that has to do with relative masses). 
He assumed that his conclusion (that it is something that has to do with relative masses) was true as part of his premise (that it is something that has to do with relative masses)
I don't understand how his is not circular reasoning and mine is.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 02:12:27 AM
There are plenty of studies showing that praying for someone who's ill has no more effect than not praying for them, and if they know people are praying for them, there's even a negative effect.  And to be blunt, it is not the scientists and doctors who investigate these things that I have an issue with.  It is the theologians and priests who apparently think it's safe to give their god the credit if science can't explain it, and thus are committing the God of the Gaps fallacy.
Could you give me some of these "many studies"? I don't seem to be able to find any beside that one (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf) who is saying quite the opposite of what you are telling us.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 07, 2014, 03:10:50 AM
Let him do his own research for a change instead of getting people to answer his own questions for him.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Graybeard on July 07, 2014, 04:55:13 AM
I still maintain that the findings of miracle is a scientific process.
I think you mean that you believe that the investigation of a miracle is a genuine investigation, although any conclusion that "God did it." is open to question as (a) some other deity or supernatural being might have done it (ii) there is a natural but undiscovered cause.

If you accept the above amendment, I think we could progress.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 07, 2014, 08:42:51 AM
You don't have to hand it to the theologians. You, yourself, alone could follow the sames rules these theologians follow and discern by yourself if it is from God or from some other deity. You could learn how these rules came by even if it takes a lifetime to do so, but ultimately you could learn them and use them to discern. When you have your answer you MUST present it to other theologians who will agree with your conclusion... or not. That's how science work, that's how miracles work too.
Miracles are not science, as I've been trying to tell you for weeks now.  Science is about trying to understand how things work, and declaring that something is a miracle from God is the antithesis of that, because what you're essentially saying - as you have admitted repeatedly - is that scientists can't explain these things, and therefore it's 'reasonable' to hand them off to theologians instead.  But no theologians actually attempt to explain how the 'miracle' works.  They're simply giving credit for it to a god.  If you can't explain how something works, even hypothetically, then you have no business trying to pass it off as science.

Let me put it this way.  Even if you were correct and your god was actually responsible, that would still not explain how the healings worked, which is necessary for something to be a scientific explanation.  For example, Higgs hypothesized[1] that there was a field (now called the Higgs field in his honor) which caused certain particles to have mass, and his hypothesis predicted that there would be a particle - the Higgs boson - which was part of that field and would thus have certain properties which could be identified.  So when the scientists were able to detect the Higgs boson in 2012, they weren't simply saying, "Oh, hey, here's a particle we've never seen before.  Let's call it a Higgs boson", which is what you've been suggesting that they did.  No, they identified it from the predictions that Peter Higgs made forty years ago as to the properties it would have.  The point is that the Higgs boson is evidence for the Higgs field, which explains how particles have mass, and thus is scientific.  Miracles, as you've described them, not only are not scientific, they cannot be, because there's not even the slightest attempt to predict or explain how it works.

Instead, you seem satisfied that if your theologians say it's God's doing, then it must be God's doing.  Even though by definition there's no explanation for how it worked; how your god actually did the healings.  Frankly, I don't think you can produce such an explanation, and therefore your belief cannot be scientific.
 1. this is a very simplified version of it
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 07, 2014, 10:16:02 AM
Apparently, The method concocted in #199 by Graybeard also depends on circular reasoning.
I expected you might try this.  "If mine was circular, his has to be too!"  Basically, all that you're concerned with is making your argument seem as plausible as the scientific one.  If you can't, then you try to make the scientific one seem less plausible, to get the same result.  This is a dishonest approach, akin to a failed athlete who can't compete taking drugs to improve his own performance, or trying to sabotage the other athletes to reduce their own.

Quote from: Lukvance
His stated hypothesis was that It is something to do with relative masses, and in his conclusion, he stated that the force was Gravity (which is something that has to do with relative masses).
As reference, #199 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg618980.html#msg618980).

Graybeard's argument is an attempt to explain why things fall.  His hypothesis is indeed that it has something to do with relative masses, since this explains observed facts (such as planetary motion and the reason that people don't float off into space).  He cited an experiment where test masses is allowed to fall in a vacuum, and its position and acceleration are known very precisely, which allows us to directly measure the apparent force that attracts masses.

I will cite other experiments in support of him.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/ (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/) - NASA put a spinning gyroscope[1] in orbit, pointed at a distant star as a reference point, and measured the perturbations to the direction the gyroscope was pointing, predicted to be caused by Earth's rotation affecting its gravity.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Cavendish-and-the-Value-of-G (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/Cavendish-and-the-Value-of-G) - Otherwise known as the Cavendish experiment, this was an ingenious method developed by Lord Henry Cavendish to measure the degree of attraction between two masses on Earth.  It worked by using torsion to counteract Earth's gravity, thus putting  the objects thus suspended in a state akin to free fall.  Using it, he was able to measure the attraction between relative masses (in this case, lead spheres of different sizes), and was thus able to calculate the gravitational constant.

Quote from: Lukvance
He assumed that his conclusion (that it is something that has to do with relative masses) was true as part of his premise (that it is something that has to do with relative masses)
The thing is, he didn't actually assume as part of his premise that the reason things fell was due to relative masses.  He simply observed that things fell and tried to explain why using only experiments which could be (and have been) reproduced by other people.

Quote from: Lukvance
I don't understand how his is not circular reasoning and mine is.
The reason yours is circular reasoning is that you're asserting that people healed by magic in your initial question, and further assuming that this magic is caused by a being you call "God" (which you state in your hypothesis).  Therefore, when you conclude that people are healed by "God", you are essentially assuming your premise (that people are healed by magic, caused by God) is true, and thus sabotaging the whole thing through the fallacy of circular logic.  In order to remove the fallacy, you must remove the assumption (that magic causes the healings), as I already advised you in #426.  I know you read it because you responded to part of it, so I am not sure why you are still having trouble here.

I explained why Graybeard's argument is not circular earlier in this post.  But what it boils down to is that he isn't making an assumption as to what is causing things to fall.  He hypothesized something that could cause this phenomenon, and cited experiments that had been done which supported his hypothesis.  The mere fact that he suggests relative masses as a cause in his hypothesis does not make it circular reasoning.
 1. a fantastically precise one, using technologies which kept the gyroscope from being disturbed by everything from brushes with residual atmosphere to the magnetic field even to measuring the gyroscope itself
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 07, 2014, 10:18:27 AM
Could you give me some of these "many studies"? I don't seem to be able to find any beside that one (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf) who is saying quite the opposite of what you are telling us.
Did you even bother looking?

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

There's nine listed on the wiki page alone.

EDIT:  It occurred to me that I should probably respond to this study you cited supposedly linking prayer and recovery only after I'd already written the post.

One critical flaw in the study is that they could not control for whether other people prayed for those people or not.  As he stated, "some of the patients in the control group would be prayed for, whereas all of the patients in the prayer group would be (i.e., by both nonassociated people and by the designated intercessors of the study)".  It is not acceptable in a scientific study to leave such a loophole in the very variable you're trying to examine.  It would be like trying to perform an experiment involving measurements of light photons in a well-lit room, and trying to 'control' for it by assuming that the stuff that you were trying to examine would be even brighter than the stuff you were trying to use as a control.

A second flaw in the study is that it involves a very small number of people (approximately 200 in each group).  While this does not disqualify it, it is necessary to do multiple studies, especially when they're involving small groups of people, to rule out the possibility that it could simply be random chance which caused the differences.

A third flaw is that it does not apparently control for overall health (at least, I could find no mention of it).  As healthy people are more likely to recover and avoid additional complications, this is not something which can safely be disregarded.

As a result of these flaws, I can hardly consider this study any kind of definitive evidence of the efficacy of prayer.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 02:10:44 PM
I think you mean that you believe that the investigation of a miracle is a genuine investigation, although any conclusion that "God did it." is open to question as (a) some other deity or supernatural being might have done it (ii) there is a natural but undiscovered cause.
There is a cause. God is the cause in the miracle cases.
Have you seen other deities passing all the tests demanded by miracles?
When you say "it can be some other deity" I read "It can be some other Boson" For me, it doesn't make sense because of all the research and test done about that particular event.
I am not saying there are nothing else than God that could cure illness. I come from a culture where vodou is strong and can cure terminal illness. But in these cases there was always 3 victims who had to "pay the price" with their health.
I am saying that in the particular case of miracles recognized by the Vatican, there are no more doubt that it is an act of God. Proof of his existence as an independent being.
When you say "God did it" I read "It's the Higgs Boson" I understand that there is a theory about how saying "God did it" is not a valid answer in some cases. But there is at least one case where it can be said. Like saying "it's the Higgs Boson" is not a valid answer in some cases but there is at least one case where it can be said.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 02:28:58 PM
The reason yours is circular reasoning is that you're asserting that people healed by magic in your initial question, and further assuming that this magic is caused by a being you call "God" (which you state in your hypothesis).  Therefore, when you conclude that people are healed by "God", you are essentially assuming your premise (that people are healed by magic, caused by God) is true, and thus sabotaging the whole thing through the fallacy of circular logic.  In order to remove the fallacy, you must remove the assumption (that magic causes the healings), as I already advised you in #426.  I know you read it because you responded to part of it, so I am not sure why you are still having trouble here.

I explained why Graybeard's argument is not circular earlier in this post.  But what it boils down to is that he isn't making an assumption as to what is causing things to fall.  He hypothesized something that could cause this phenomenon, and cited experiments that had been done which supported his hypothesis.  The mere fact that he suggests relative masses as a cause in his hypothesis does not make it circular reasoning.
I don't get you at all. You want so much to prove that I used circular reasoning that you diminish Graybeards assumption by saying "The mere fact that he suggests relative masses as a cause in his hypothesis does not make it circular reasoning." And you don't seem to be able to say "The mere fact that I suggests magic as a cause in my hypothesis does not make it circular reasoning."
I don't know how to present it differently. We both used circular reasoning or we did not. You should not prefer on method for the only reason that it goes towards proving me wrong. It has to actually be flawed.
I don't really care if Graybeards example is flawed, I will also admit that mine is flawed.
You have to remember something. I am using the scientific experiment to prove the existence of God because you guys told me it was the only manner that you could eventually accept it. For me, I did not need that scientific experiment to believe in the existence of God outside my body. Only logic and testimonies sufficed to convince me.
If you want to have another Go at the scientific experiment and use it to prove that the Higgs boson exist outside your body. I will then be able to follow "your" scientific method and adapt it to prove that God exist outside your body.
What my scientific experiment boils down to is that I am not making an assumption as to what is causing people to heal. I hypothesized something that could cause this phenomenon, and cited experiments that had been done which supported my hypothesis.  The mere fact that I suggests magic as a cause in my hypothesis does not make it circular reasoning.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 02:32:37 PM
Did you even bother looking?

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

There's nine listed on the wiki page alone.
Yes I did. Which one of these nine do you want to discuss? Aren't most of them not Catholic prayers?
Wich one support the best your following claim? :
There are plenty of studies showing that praying for someone who's ill has no more effect than not praying for them, and if they know people are praying for them, there's even a negative effect.

One of these 9 studies : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305403/
Even concluded "These data support the possibility of a DH (distant healing) effect in AIDS and suggest the value of further research."
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Astreja on July 07, 2014, 02:35:31 PM
There is a cause. God is the cause in the miracle cases.
Have you seen other deities passing all the tests demanded by miracles?

The "tests" don't appear to be all that stringent regarding the elimination of all other allegedly divine causes.  It appears that the RCC makes an enormous and extremely premature leap of faith:

{haven't found natural cause} + {patient is devout Catholic} = {god of Catholicism did it}

What if the real source of healing is an aloof entity that doesn't care whether or not it gets credit for miracles?   What if the research into natural causes simply isn't stringent and exhaustive enough?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on July 07, 2014, 02:51:06 PM
One of these 9 studies : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305403/
Even concluded "These data support the possibility of a DH (distant healing) effect in AIDS and suggest the value of further research."

from the report:
Quote
DH [distance healing] treatment was performed by self-identified healers representing many different healing and spiritual traditions.
...
Practitioners included healers from Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Native American, and shamanic traditions
as well as graduates of secular schools of bioenergetic and meditative healing.

So, not all were catholic.  Some were new-age crystal healers, shakra specialists and the ilk.  This would suggest non-catholics can also do "miraculous" healing. 

Also:
Quote
There were no significant differences in CD4+ counts.

which is to say, no actual difference in the disease.


edit: corrected facts about background of "healers"
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 03:54:51 PM
The "tests" don't appear to be all that stringent regarding the elimination of all other allegedly divine causes.  It appears that the RCC makes an enormous and extremely premature leap of faith:

{haven't found natural cause} + {patient is devout Catholic} = {god of Catholicism did it}

What if the real source of healing is an aloof entity that doesn't care whether or not it gets credit for miracles?   What if the research into natural causes simply isn't stringent and exhaustive enough?
The key word here is do not APPEAR to be. You might want to look further into it. There is A LOT more that is done than you can think of. The few I know is just the surface.
You ask what if the real source of healing is "an aloof entity that doesn't care whether or not it gets credit for miracles". What makes you think that God is not such an aloof entity?
"What if the research into natural causes simply isn't stringent and exhaustive enough?" Then you can add whatever you think is missing. But first, have a look at it! I'm telling you, it's huge!
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 04:08:32 PM
One of these 9 studies : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305403/
Even concluded "These data support the possibility of a DH (distant healing) effect in AIDS and suggest the value of further research."
from the report:
Quote
DH [distance healing] treatment was performed by self-identified healers representing many different healing and spiritual traditions.
...
Practitioners included healers from Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Native American, and shamanic traditions
as well as graduates of secular schools of bioenergetic and meditative healing.
So, not all were catholic.  Some were new-age crystal healers, shakra specialists and the ilk.  This would suggest non-catholics can also do "miraculous" healing. 
Also:
Quote
There were no significant differences in CD4+ counts.
which is to say, no actual difference in the disease.
edit: corrected facts about background of "healers"

Thank you for your input screwtape. How does your reply support jaimehlers claim?

There are plenty of studies showing that praying for someone who's ill has no more effect than not praying for them, and if they know people are praying for them, there's even a negative effect.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 07, 2014, 04:35:21 PM
I can give you a real-life concrete example where knowing that someone was praying had a negative effect on a patient-- me:

I was being taken into a complicated surgery for a serious condition, and I was feeling calm and fairly positive. I had done all that I could to prepare myself for the outcome, whatever it might be. Then one of the operating nurses said to me, with a sad look on her face, "May god bless you."

I began to freak out. Why did she think I needed her god's blessing? What did she know that I did not know? Was my situation worse than previously thought? Was my surgeon drunk? I was upset and on the verge of tears by the time they came to do the anesthesia.

I was now anxious and tense about the surgery. The outcome might have been worse than otherwise, maybe it took more anesthesia than normal to calm me down, maybe my blood pressure was higher. Who knows?

If only I had had the moxie to respond, "Eff you. I don't need your god's blessing, just do a good goddamn job on my surgery." To this day, I wish she had kept her stupid religion to her damn self.  >:(
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 07, 2014, 05:11:01 PM
You have still not linked us to anything concrete Luk,just propaganda ,hearsay,and biased opinion. Do you think that other faiths and cultures don't have the same stuff from their deitys? With the same stuff you hold up as proof?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 07, 2014, 05:37:53 PM
The "tests" don't appear to be all that stringent regarding the elimination of all other allegedly divine causes.  It appears that the RCC makes an enormous and extremely premature leap of faith:

{haven't found natural cause} + {patient is devout Catholic} = {god of Catholicism did it}

What if the real source of healing is an aloof entity that doesn't care whether or not it gets credit for miracles?   What if the research into natural causes simply isn't stringent and exhaustive enough?
The key word here is do not APPEAR to be. You might want to look further into it. There is A LOT more that is done than you can think of. The few I know is just the surface.
You ask what if the real source of healing is "an aloof entity that doesn't care whether or not it gets credit for miracles". What makes you think that God is not such an aloof entity?
"What if the research into natural causes simply isn't stringent and exhaustive enough?" Then you can add whatever you think is missing. But first, have a look at it! I'm telling you, it's huge!

The point is, that without strict criteria to identify the cause of the healing, there is no certain way to tell! You are arbitrarily saying that, if science can't figure it out, it has to be a miracle from your god. But you have yet to explain why it has to be that. There are at least four different possibilities that have to be considered:

1) It could be a miracle performed by the god you and the priests think it is.

2) It could be a miracle performed by different god altogether--maybe one that nobody knows about yet.

3) It could be a powerful but helpful alien from a different planet-- not a god at all-- who wants to keep its presence hidden from us.[1]

4) It could be a scientific principle that we have not yet discovered, something that we will be able to detect when a new instrument is invented next year. At that point we will be able to eliminate 1, 2 and 3, because we will then have a scientific explanation.

In 1 and 2, there is something magical going on that has to do with a god. In 3 and 4 there is a natural explanation.

How do you decide that only 1 has to be true? How did you rule out 2, 3 and 4 when there is currently no way to test for these possibilities? I am really curious as to how a priest can say that the healing could not have been done as described in 3.

At best, as of now, all you can say is that it could be any of the four possibilities--or even something else not listed here. In other words, you do not know who or what did the healing or how it was done.
 1. It secretly implants the idea that their god did the healing into the brains of all religious people in the vicinity. The religious people cannot tell the implanted idea came from an alien being.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 07, 2014, 05:45:46 PM
I don't get you at all.
That much is plainly obvious.  But you don't really 'get' yourself, either.  Your belief in God is so central to your mindset that you literally don't understand people to whom the idea isn't central, or who don't have it at all, but you don't recognize that this is the case, so you keep misunderstanding what people are trying to say.

Quote from: Lukvance
You want so much to prove that I used circular reasoning that you diminish Graybeards assumption by saying "The mere fact that he suggests relative masses as a cause in his hypothesis does not make it circular reasoning." And you don't seem to be able to say "The mere fact that I suggests magic as a cause in my hypothesis does not make it circular reasoning."
The problem is that your idea that they were 'magically' healed was present from the very start, before you even formed a hypothesis.  As you said in #203 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg619042.html#msg619042), "Ask question: “Why do people get magically healed?”"  You assumed from the very beginning - before you even formulated a hypothesis - that they were magical healings (caused by God).  That is why your argument is circular.  You had already assumed that they were magically healed before you started to formulate your hypothesis.

And before you come back with yet another "well, Graybeard did the same thing" retort, he did not make that mistake, because he recognized that he needed to not assume that gravity was the cause in order to avoid making a circular argument.  So he simply asked the question of why things fell, identified relative masses as a possible cause, and then cited an experiment showing that relative masses were the likely cause, thus allowing him to state that as his conclusion.  That, after all, is the point of having a hypothesis.

Quote from: Lukvance
I don't know how to present it differently.
In short, you don't understand the scientific method well enough to recognize that you don't understand it.  I'm not trying to be rude here, but if a person's understanding of something is poor enough, they will actually think they understand it fairly well (better than the median).  This is a form of cognitive bias known as the [wiki]Dunning-Kruger effect[/wiki].

Quote from: Lukvance
We both used circular reasoning or we did not.
This is a false dichotomy.  You are presenting this as if it is either one or the other, when it can in fact be a different option entirely (specifically, Graybeard avoided using circular reasoning while you did not).  Given your apparent lack of understanding of how to use the scientific method, the third option is most likely the case.

Quote from: Lukvance
You should not prefer on method for the only reason that it goes towards proving me wrong. It has to actually be flawed.
Believe me, you've made enough logical fallacies that I could take my pick.  I'm focusing on a specific fallacy in the hope that you will eventually pick up on it.

Quote from: Lukvance
I don't really care if Graybeards example is flawed, I will also admit that mine is flawed.
If I show that Graybeard used the scientific method correctly and you didn't, can you admit that you were wrong?

Quote from: Lukvance
You have to remember something. I am using the scientific experiment to prove the existence of God because you guys told me it was the only manner that you could eventually accept it.
The scientific method isn't a means to convince anyone of anything, or a means to prove the existence of something.  It is a means to identify things that are false and remove them from consideration as possible explanations, leaving only things that might be true.  It may be true that we can never actually prove that a miracle didn't happen, but that will not make it a believable reason, especially when the scientific part ends at "we can't explain how this happened".  I am perfectly willing to admit that I don't know how those people were healed, but you'll need more than that to convince me that it was your god.  Your problem is that you don't have more than that.

Quote from: Lukvance
For me, I did not need that scientific experiment to believe in the existence of God outside my body. Only logic and testimonies sufficed to convince me.
I'd be willing to bet real money that you already believed that God existed long before you got to the point of being able to assess logic and testimonies, and therefore they were simply the icing on the cake for you.  It's not very difficult to convince someone of something when they already pretty much believe it to be true.

Quote from: Lukvance
If you want to have another Go at the scientific experiment and use it to prove that the Higgs boson exist outside your body. I will then be able to follow "your" scientific method and adapt it to prove that God exist outside your body.
I'm guessing you don't realize how utterly ignorant you just came across with this single statement of yours.  If I needed additional evidence to show that you don't really understand the whole point of the thing, this would have been more than sufficient.

Watching you butcher the scientific method to try to prove that your god exists outside of your mind is like watching a train go off the rails - it's so awful that it's difficult to pull the eyes away from.  It would be one thing if you actually understood that your attempts were deficient, even if you didn't recognize how.  Then I would be okay with going over it with you as many times as necessary to help you understand what you're doing wrong.  But you've made it clear that you're just humoring us so you can try to spread your belief, and that you aren't able, let alone willing, to consider that your belief might not be right.

I'll keep trying - after all, that's kind of the point of this website, to try to break through false certainties no matter how firmly a person clutches to them - but given how abysmally bad your understanding of science is, trying to talk to you in those terms is worse than useless.

Quote from: Lukvance
What my scientific experiment boils down to is that I am not making an assumption as to what is causing people to heal. I hypothesized something that could cause this phenomenon, and cited experiments that had been done which supported my hypothesis.  The mere fact that I suggests magic as a cause in my hypothesis does not make it circular reasoning.
First off, you aren't actually doing a scientific experiment.  You're trying to present "miracle-finding" in the lingo of science so that you can pretend that you've proved it scientifically, but you're actually making a mockery of the whole thing (and the worst part is that you don't even realize just how ridiculous you look by so doing).  Second, you assumed that the healings were magical before you ever started trying to present your beliefs using scientific lingo, which is why your argument was circular.  Third, the 'experiments' you cited were simply statements that scientists didn't know how to explain the healings at Lourdes.  There is no reason to take the opinions of theologians - whether Catholic, Protestant, or some different religion - as being relevant to science, or to act like asking them for those opinions was at all scientific.

You are welcome to try again, but subsequent efforts will be no more fruitful than this one was as long as you continue to make the same faulty assumptions and faulty arguments.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 07, 2014, 06:23:42 PM
Yes I did. Which one of these nine do you want to discuss? Aren't most of them not Catholic prayers?
I'd rather not discuss any of them with you, given that attitude.  When you indicate that you're fully prepared to dismiss studies as irrelevant if they don't cover Catholic prayers, you're indicating your bias on the subject.

Quote from: Lukvance
Wich one support the best your following claim? :One of these 9 studies : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305403/
Even concluded "These data support the possibility of a DH (distant healing) effect in AIDS and suggest the value of further research."
The study I was thinking of was actually the STEP project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer#The_STEP_project), which showed no appreciable difference in complications between those who received prayer and those who didn't receive it (in fact, those who didn't fared slightly better), but a significant jump in complications for those who received prayer and knew it.  Which suggests that if prayers do in fact have an effect on health, they work best when the recipient isn't aware of it.

I'll grant that the subject isn't as clear-cut as I originally thought.  I heard about that study some time ago, and it seems it grew somewhat in the intervening time (much like "the one that got away").  Do you see why I keep cautioning you about bias, Lukvance?  I've worked hard to keep myself from being biased about things, and yet I still made a bad assumption which led to overstating my case here.  Don't you think that you might want to take that as a cautionary tale?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 07, 2014, 06:57:18 PM
My guess luk will not get a dam thing from the above two posts.

jame you are a true saint for trying but i fear you are casting pearls before swine.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 07, 2014, 07:26:54 PM
It does not really matter if Lukvance ever understands the scientific method.

The point of explaining it is for everyone else who might stop by this site and read, not just Lukvance. He is just a vehicle, if you will, for organizing and expressing our thoughts.[1] 

It would be gratifying if he could at least acknowledge that the way the Catholic Church evaluates miracles is not at all scientific. There are no control groups to compare the miracle healing to; and there is no specific criteria to identify what would constitute a miracle from one god, vs a miracle from a different god, or something else disguising itself as a god. And there is no criteria given to distinguish a godly or alien miracle from an as yet undiscovered medical principle.

The procedure he describes is nowhere near the meticulous criteria used for decades before identifying the Higgs Bosun. If he accepts that his viewpoint on miracle healings is not supported by science, that would be progress. He can still believe in miracles and god and prayer if he wants to, but he cannot say that any of it is based on scientific research.

He would then be in the same position as Old Church Guy, or any of us in terms of whatever irrational things we hold onto for emotional reasons.
 1. Lukvance will be happy to know that some of my responses to him will end up in the atheist book I am writing. I also thank Jst and skeptic for their help in furthering the cause of rational thinking.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: SevenPatch on July 07, 2014, 07:30:26 PM
I apologize but I haven’t taken the time to read all of the posts in this thread.  I see a lot of discussion about circular reasoning or logic regarding posts number 199, and 201, which I’ll be quoting from in this post. 

Maybe I can squash this discussion right now.  We’ll see I guess.  I’m probably being somewhere between overly optimistic to downright unrealistic.

Perhaps I’m missing something here but I don’t necessarily see any circular reasoning/logic here.   Maybe a different post that I missed?

Now, the problem I do see with Lukvance’s attempt to use the scientific method is that his background research and hypothesis offer no means to be falsified, where as Graybeard’s example does. 

Ask question: “Why do things fall downwards?”
Do background research: “Hmmm, most things fall down to earth, but some go up!
Things that go up do so because the displacement buoyancy is greater than the force pulling them down.
What is that force that pulls things down?

The scientific method isn’t just about verifying a hypothesis, it is also employs a healthy attempt to falsify the hypothesis as well.  Any good scientist will go to great lengths to prove their own hypothesis is false.  If predictions hold true and no evidence can be found to falsify a hypothesis then it can be “graduated” to a working theory which can be useful in explaining how things work.  That is the goal of science, to explain how reality works. 

Graybeard skipped the part of the background research where many, many objects were experimented with to determine what falls and what goes up due to displacement buoyancy.  The background research allows us to form a hypothesis that “what causes things to fall downwards” has something to do with the mass of the “thing”. 

From the hypothesis we can make predictions, which can be verified or falsified.  If the predictions are shown to be incorrect then there is a problem, either with the testing methods used, the prediction made or the hypothesis entirely.

Now, let’s look at Lukvance’s example relating to background research:

Ask question: “Why do people get magically healed?”
Do background research: “Most people who get sick go the the hospital and get cured by following medical assistance, but some of them just pray and get cures without medical assistance.
What is that force that cure them?"

First, the use of the word magically in the original question is unusual.  I’ll look the other way and assume the intention is “unexpectedly without any type of known treatment”. 

Second, the “Do background research” is completely dissimilar to the example provided by Graybeard.  It is actually a piss poor attempt at mimicry.  In Graybeard’s example, we know that a bowling ball is going to fall, every time if dropped above a surface, on the Earth just as we know that hot air will always cause a hot air balloon to rise from a surface, on the earth (once the air has been heated to around 212*F (100*C) and assuming there is enough cubic feet of air to lift the weight of the balloon and attached objects).  In Lukvance’s example however, we do not know that everyone who goes to a hospital are cured, in fact quite the opposite, not everyone who goes to a hospital is cured even when the problem is curable (most of the time it is cured, but not all the time).  Not going to a hospital results in even less chance of being cured.  Very few people who don’t seek medical assistance survive and most suffer and/or die.

To make things complicated, prayer is included.  Where is the background research related to prayer? 

IIRC, there is plenty of research on prayer and its effect has actually ranged from no effect to detrimental to survival rates.   I would be willing to guess that prayer is much more effective when a person goes to a hospital versus when they do not.  Weird huh, I know. 

Seeking medical assistance at a hospital and not will produce vastly different results with different results within each subset (going to a hospital versus not going to a hospital) further complicating the matter.  I don’t see how any hypothesis could be drawn from this background research other than it is better to go to a hospital. 

Yet somehow we get to:

Construct hypothesis: It is something to do with God.

In what way exactly does the background research “Most people who get sick go the the hospital and get cured by following medical assistance, but some of them just pray and get cures without medical assistance” lead to constructing a hypothesis relating to “God”.  It is complete non sequitur.  Where exactly does it become apparent that “God” is involved?  The only thing I see related to “God” is the action of “praying”.

How many people are cured who don’t go to the hospital and did not pray?

How many people are cured who don’t go to the hospital and did pray?

How many people are cured who did go to the hospital and did not pray?

How many people are cured who did go to the hospital and did pray?

From my perspective, the background research relating to going to a hospital versus not going to a hospital might lead me to constructing a hypothesis that the human body is capable of healing itself but does better if aided by other means (assuming no medical conditions which prevent healing).  For example, if I get a two inch long cut on my hand (not very deep), my body will heal the cut without going to the hospital.  Although there is a chance the cut could become infected, but if I go to a hospital and get some medical assistance, then there is less chance of infection.   If I pray and my body does what it was already going to do (heal the cut) does that mean my prayer was answered?  If I don’t pray, then what?  What happens if I pray and then get an infection?  What happens if antibiotics cure the infection?  Am I supposed to thank Louis Pasteur or “God”?

If we look at the example provided by Graybeard:

Ask question: “Why do things fall downwards?”
Do background research: “Hmmm, most things fall down to earth, but some go up!
Things that go up do so because the displacement buoyancy is greater than the force pulling them down.
What is that force that pulls things down? 

Construct hypothesis: It is something to do with relative masses.
This would explain planetary motion and why Australians do not fall off the earth!

We see there are links between the question, background research and eventual hypothesis.  Cause and effect.  Things falling downwards is an effect, the background research shows that mass is involved and thus the hypothesis can be constructed as the cause.  Predictions are then made based on the hypothesis which can be further tested to verify or falsify the hypothesis.

This would explain why God is living outside our head.

This part is text book begging the question logical fallacy. 

In Graybeard’s example, planetary motion and Australians not falling off the Earth is observed.  To be fair, I think Graybeard’s example skipped over the predictions part of the hypothesis.  While it is nice when a hypothesis fits the observations, it doesn’t necessarily verify the hypothesis.  One of the key predictions made by the Newtonian mathematics was that the Earth would be oblate spheroid shaped as opposed to a perfect spherical shape.  At the time, it was unknown exactly what shape the Earth was and (pretty much) everyone thought the Earth was perfectly spherical.  Newton’s prediction, based on the hypothesis of relative mass (aka gravity) causing the attraction between objects, was later verified.  Additionally, predictions can be made of small unknown objects (comets and asteroids) as well in which we would have no way of knowing what the trajectory would be.  The hypothesis would be falsified if objects behaved based on some different cause unrelated to relative mass (like if bowling balls flew up into space while tennis balls fall to the center of the earth at light speed). 

“God” living outside our head however, is not observed.  If “God” is observed, as Mars orbiting the Sun can be observed, then please, let me know how to observe “God”.  Will I need a telescope?

I don’t have access on my current PC to review the pdf that is supposed to represent an experiment.  I’m somewhat doubtful that the Lourdes water can be used to make any useful predictions.  Wikipedia states that an estimated 200 million people have visited the shrine since 1860 and the Roman Catholic Church has officially recognized 69 healings as miraculous.  What does that mean?  I can only guess that there is no known answer, so we have to admit ignorance.  By the way, 69 people out of 200 million is 0.0000345%.  Am I to believe that only 69 people actually touched the water?  Perhaps it has to be the right time of day?  Or perhaps they prayed the right way?  OH wait, I know, only 69 people deserved to be cured.  Maybe the Catholic Church was being too conservative and more people were actually cured? 

I really don’t see how Lourdes water provides a reliable prediction to test the hypothesis.  It’s completely inconclusive and provides no means to verify or falsify the hypothesis which was incorrectly derived from incomplete background research.

Lukvance, the only thing you got right was “Ask a question” but you failed on every other step, miserably.  Asking questions is pretty easy though dude, you better step up your game.

Check this out:

Ask a question: “Why do some people heal unexpectedly without any type of known treatment?”

Do background research: “Most people who pray for a cure without medical assistance are not cured, some people who pray for a cure without medical assistance are cured.
What is that force that cure them?"

Construct hypothesis: It has nothing to do with “God”.
This would explain why praying to “God” has no distinguishable effect.

Test with experiment: http://skepdic.com/lourdes.html

Does it work? Yes

Analyse data and draw conclusions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Results align with hypothesis

Communicate results to you : “God” is not the cause of people healing unexpectedly without any type of known treatment.

Oops.


EDIT: The skepdic.com article notes that more people have been injured / harmed (and I suspect died) on the way to or from Lourdes than have actually been cured.  I would submit a hypothesis that Lourdes actually has a harmful impact rather than helpful.  Ironically, this would support skeptics hypothesis that the Catholic Church is being manipulated by “Satan”.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 07, 2014, 07:58:36 PM
The better question is why if God is everywhere why would a pilgrimage  to a certain location for God to heal you be a need or even necessary?  Luke why can't you just pray and be healed? Is it to show God you are serious? If you need to show God and travel to the healing destination,and he says no,what then?

 A deity that says no,is a deity that is imaginary
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on July 07, 2014, 08:19:38 PM
Praying is apparently the key to everything. So, if praying is the key then I guess Heaven must be the lock. Most keys and locks work on a tumbler system. You have to have the right key to unlock the right door. Or you must have the proper knowledge to be able to hack the lock.

My best guess is that God doesn't answer prayers. If there is a god...he just leaves it to us to figure out how to get in...I don't think s/he cares either way.



Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 10:14:12 PM
The point is, that without strict criteria to identify the cause of the healing, there is no certain way to tell! You are arbitrarily saying that, if science can't figure it out, it has to be a miracle from your god. But you have yet to explain why it has to be that. There are at least four different possibilities that have to be considered:
1) It could be a miracle performed by the god you and the priests think it is.
2) It could be a miracle performed by different god altogether--maybe one that nobody knows about yet.
3) It could be a powerful but helpful alien from a different planet-- not a god at all-- who wants to keep its presence hidden from us.[1]
4) It could be a scientific principle that we have not yet discovered, something that we will be able to detect when a new instrument is invented next year. At that point we will be able to eliminate 1, 2 and 3, because we will then have a scientific explanation.
In 1 and 2, there is something magical going on that has to do with a god. In 3 and 4 there is a natural explanation.
How do you decide that only 1 has to be true? How did you rule out 2, 3 and 4 when there is currently no way to test for these possibilities? I am really curious as to how a priest can say that the healing could not have been done as described in 3.

At best, as of now, all you can say is that it could be any of the four possibilities--or even something else not listed here. In other words, you do not know who or what did the healing or how it was done.
 1. It secretly implants the idea that their god did the healing into the brains of all religious people in the vicinity. The religious people cannot tell the implanted idea came from an alien being.
Alright. We disagree on the fact that there is not enough strict criteria. I told you, add as much criteria as you see fit. The result will be the same.
Nevertheless isn't it the same for everything else in the world?
I could say "NO! The point is, that without strict criteria to identify the cause of *insert whatever you want here*, there is no certain way to tell!" Who are you to tell me that the "strict criteria" has been met? Do you have the monopoly on what a "strict criteria" is?
I mean let's take the example of the Higgs Boson finding that I like so much :
1) It could be the Higgs boson that you and the experts think it is.
2) It could be a different boson altogether -- maybe one that nobody knows about yet.
3) It could be a powerful alien from a different planet who wants to mess with us.
4) It could be a scientific principle that we have not yet discovered, something that we will be able to detect when a new instrument is invented next year. At that point we will be able to eliminate 1, 2 and 3. (because we will then have a scientific explanation!?)

There is proofs, books, volumes written about miracles and how to detect them. It is not something secret.
I admit some things are too complex for me to understand fully. (would it be the Higgs Boson or the miracles) but I trust the experts (in both cases) because the little knowledge I have of it seems legit to me.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 10:30:52 PM
The problem is that your idea that they were 'magically' healed was present from the very start, before you even formed a hypothesis.  As you said in #203 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg619042.html#msg619042), "Ask question: “Why do people get magically healed?”"  You assumed from the very beginning - before you even formulated a hypothesis - that they were magical healings (caused by God).  That is why your argument is circular.  You had already assumed that they were magically healed before you started to formulate your hypothesis.
You don't make sense. We observe that things falls without apparent reason. We observe that people get healed without apparent reason. Right? Am I lying here?
I agree Graybeard didn't say that "stuff magically falls" but I understand that it was implied that the stuff was "dropped" and not thrown toward the floor. If you prefer changing the question to something that implies the fact that people weren't heal by medical means you can but it would make things more complicated to understand afterwards.

Quote
If I show that Graybeard used the scientific method correctly and you didn't, can you admit that you were wrong?
Of course. But I don't see how you could show me the method I use is radically different than the one presented by Graybeard. Maybe if correct the method that I presented so it won't be wrong? I doubt you would do that as it goes against your goal. (which is to disprove the existence of God outside your body)
Usually, don't you know that something is wrong because you know how to make it right? I don't think you know how to make it right in this instance.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 10:43:56 PM
I'd rather not discuss any of them with you, given that attitude.  When you indicate that you're fully prepared to dismiss studies as irrelevant if they don't cover Catholic prayers, you're indicating your bias on the subject.
I don't understand. Did you forget that I was catholic? That miracles and the God I pray to is the Catholic God? Of course there will be bias from me on the subject.
If not, what keeps you to find a study where people prayed Satan? And has the result you wish it to have? (prayer makes things worse)

Quote
I'll grant that the subject isn't as clear-cut as I originally thought.  I heard about that study some time ago, and it seems it grew somewhat in the intervening time (much like "the one that got away").  Do you see why I keep cautioning you about bias, Lukvance?  I've worked hard to keep myself from being biased about things, and yet I still made a bad assumption which led to overstating my case here.  Don't you think that you might want to take that as a cautionary tale?
I know all about bias. Don't worry. I will keep your story as a cautionary tale.
Does this mean that you agree with me? There is no proof that prayer to God (Catholic God of course) makes things worse? Only the opposite?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 07, 2014, 10:49:07 PM
It would be gratifying if he could at least acknowledge that the way the Catholic Church evaluates miracles is not at all scientific. There are no control groups to compare the miracle healing to; and there is no specific criteria to identify what would constitute a miracle from one god, vs a miracle from a different god, or something else disguising itself as a god. And there is no criteria given to distinguish a godly or alien miracle from an as yet undiscovered medical principle.
That's a really strong claim you just dropped on us. Are you now an expert in miracles? Did you find some kind on proof that support your claim?
"There are no control groups" and "there is no specific criteria" is what I think is the most blatant lie in your statement. Please back it up or retract it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Airyaman on July 07, 2014, 11:09:07 PM
What are the qualifications to be an expert in miracles?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Astreja on July 07, 2014, 11:32:28 PM
The "tests" don't appear to be all that stringent regarding the elimination of all other allegedly divine causes.
The key word here is do not APPEAR to be. You might want to look further into it. There is A LOT more that is done than you can think of. The few I know is just the surface.

What I was getting at is this:  After eliminating "natural causes" as an explanation, do the miracle-hunters actually test for any other gods besides the god of the Bible?  If they had to set up experiments to eliminate each and every one of the literally thousands of gods worshipped by humans over the centuries, it would probably bankrupt the Vatican.

What if the real source of healing is an aloof entity that doesn't care whether or not it gets credit for miracles?
What makes you think that God is not such an aloof entity?

Well, in the context of the many Biblical exhortations to praise Yahweh, it does seem somewhat out of character to do stealth healing (although it would be in the spirit of Matthew 6:3, "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.")
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 08, 2014, 12:18:33 AM
Lukvance, are you just trolling us?  Because I cannot believe that after more than a month of posts, you still think that mirroring someone's arguments is actually going to accomplish anything except to greatly annoy them.  Never mind all this other stuff that you keep trotting out in the hopes that you'll be able to equalize your belief and science and make them equally plausible.  Let's take your bullet points below.

"1) It could be the Higgs boson that you and the experts think it is." - If by "could be" you mean "is".  The observed properties of the boson generated at the LHC matched the ones predicted by Peter Higgs well within the margin of error.  That isn't the end of the story, though.

"2) It could be a different boson altogether -- maybe one that nobody knows about yet." - This makes no sense.  I can only assume that you don't understand what finding the Higgs boson actually meant.

"3) It could be a powerful alien from a different planet who wants to mess with us." - Okay, I'll grant that there's a possibility - an infinitesimal chance, really - of there being a Q-like entity which just likes to mess with lesser beings like us.  But it's absurdly unlikely that such a being would waste its time with something like the Higgs boson.  It would be the equivalent of a trillionaire getting his jollies by dripping water from an eyedropper onto the heads of people a thousand feet below.

"4) It could be a scientific principle that we have not yet discovered, something that we will be able to detect when a new instrument is invented next year. At that point we will be able to eliminate 1, 2 and 3. (because we will then have a scientific explanation!?)" - The thing is, Lukvance, we already have a scientific explanation for the Higgs boson.  However, it is very likely that as we refine our instruments and get better data, that we will refine and modify the existing one based on it (the way that science actually works).  After all, the Higgs field was theoretical until two years ago, and we still know very little about it.  About the only thing that finding the Higgs boson accomplished was to demonstrate that the Higgs field existed, which is still really (really, really, really...) important.

The problem with your rebuttals here is that they don't actually detract from science, whereas the same rebuttals used against your belief cause it very severe problems indeed.  Scientific theories aren't certain, and scientists in general know this.  The fact that we have to refine theories over time as our instruments get better doesn't bother people who know how science works.  Compare that to your belief in God (such as miracles), and how you invariably react when it's challenged.  Every single time someone has countered your claims that miracles have a scientific explanation (which they don't, and cannot as long as there's no actual explanation), you've come right back by saying something akin to, "well, same back at you about science!"

"There is proofs, books, volumes written about miracles and how to detect them. It is not something secret." - The problem that these proofs, books, volumes, and whatnot is that they don't even come close to being scientific, never mind satisfying any reasonable burden of proof.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're useless.  For example, your church's intent to investigate possible 'miracles' does accomplish some useful things.  And I'm certainly not trying to tell you, "don't believe in miracles".  But you aren't succeeding in using science to 'prove' that they're miracles.  In fact, you're failing so badly at it that you'd be better if you stopped trying entirely.

"I admit some things are too complex for me to understand fully. (would it be the Higgs Boson or the miracles) but I trust the experts (in both cases) because the little knowledge I have of it seems legit to me." - It's a step, at least (I know how tough it can be to admit that I don't know about something).  Now you just need to take the second step and stop trying to compare science and miracles.  You know the old saying about oil and water mixing?  Your comparisons work about as well as water and oil mix together, and you're just making things worse by trying.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 08, 2014, 12:42:35 AM
I don't understand. Did you forget that I was catholic? That miracles and the God I pray to is the Catholic God? Of course there will be bias from me on the subject.
Of course I didn't forget.  The point is that you need to keep that bias from influencing you.  Please understand that bias is not the same as belief.  You can hold your beliefs while not allowing them to bias your arguments, or to lead you into logical fallacies like circular reasoning.  Honestly, Lukvance, you'll do a lot better here once you get your mind wrapped around the idea that the atheists can accept that you believe even though they don't think your god really exists.  But you need to stop trying to act like if you just find the right argument, the people here will suddenly agree that your belief is correct.  Even a apatheistic skeptic like myself wouldn't do that without solid, unambiguous, irrefutable evidence.

Quote from: Lukvance
If not, what keeps you to find a study where people prayed Satan? And has the result you wish it to have? (prayer makes things worse)
Every time I think we're starting to make some small amount of progress, you say something like this.  Can you at least try to understand that to most of the people on this forum, your god is no more real than Odin, or Zeus, or whatever other god I might name in any pantheon?  I realize that you might have trouble with this, but you have to try (just as atheists can accept that you believe something is true, even if they themselves think it's imaginary).  Otherwise there's going to be no end of frustration on both sides of the conversation.

Quote from: Lukvance
I know all about bias. Don't worry. I will keep your story as a cautionary tale.
Does this mean that you agree with me? There is no proof that prayer to God (Catholic God of course) makes things worse? Only the opposite?
I wouldn't say that.  That STEP project showed that when people know that others are praying for them, it tends to cause more complications.  This is probably a...hmm...I don't remember the actual term, so let's just call it anti-placebo.  Aside from that I would say that there's not sufficient evidence to determine what or how much actual effect prayer has, or whether it matters which god is being prayed to, although I will concede that I found no studies which showed a net negative effect on people being prayed for unknowingly.  You should not assume that it's your god that's responsible for the effects, though, because that leads straight back to the circular reasoning I was criticizing you about earlier.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: eh! on July 08, 2014, 01:07:49 AM
The better constructed arguments you give him the more he thinks his mirror parrot arguments are improved.


why keep feeding him fine words and thoughts that he mince, mangle de-intelligetise and puke back at you.


he even said anyone can repeat his miracle experiments like a science experiment and get the same miracle result....WTF.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 08, 2014, 01:18:41 AM
The problem is that your idea that they were 'magically' healed was present from the very start, before you even formed a hypothesis.  As you said in #203 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.msg619042.html#msg619042), "Ask question: “Why do people get magically healed?”"  You assumed from the very beginning - before you even formulated a hypothesis - that they were magical healings (caused by God).  That is why your argument is circular.  You had already assumed that they were magically healed before you started to formulate your hypothesis.

You don't make sense. We observe that things falls without apparent reason. We observe that people get healed without apparent reason. Right? Am I lying here?
Okay, first off, saying that something happens "without apparent reason" doesn't justify inserting a reason in order to have a reason.  But yes, we observe that things fall towards the Earth; we observe that people heal from wounds and illnesses, sometimes grave or even ones considered incurable.  Naturally, there is a reason - though explanation would be a better term - for why these things happen.  But we have to have evidence (that is to say, solid physical evidence) that supports that explanation, or else it's speculation.  Do you understand this?

Quote from: Lukvance
I agree Graybeard didn't say that "stuff magically falls" but I understand that it was implied that the stuff was "dropped" and not thrown toward the floor. If you prefer changing the question to something that implies the fact that people weren't heal by medical means you can but it would make things more complicated to understand afterwards.
Actually, it would make it far less complicated.  Your problem is that you automatically assume that your god is responsible for any phenomena that you can't explain which is consistent with what you believe about him.  The problem is, this is still a set of assumptions - that your god exists, that your god does those things. 

Quote from: Lukvance
Of course. But I don't see how you could show me the method I use is radically different than the one presented by Graybeard. Maybe if correct the method that I presented so it won't be wrong?
The problem is that you don't understand the method very well, so you're using it incorrectly.  It's like if you had two people trying to fix two computers with the same problem, using the same procedure; one of them has fixed computers before and thus knows how to follow the steps, while the other doesn't know the RAM from the CPU from the bus.  Even if they're using the same procedure on the same problem, the one who understands the subject is going to be able to follow the procedure far more effectively than the one who doesn't.  Graybeard understands the scientific method pretty well; you do not appear to.  Therefore, he will be able to construct a better example of how to use it than you will, even if you copy his form and make it look and sound like his.

Quote from: Lukvance
I doubt you would do that as it goes against your goal. (which is to disprove the existence of God outside your body)
And just what makes you think this is my goal?  My goal is to find out if a given explanation actually models reality or not.  I seriously don't care whether your god actually exists outside your mind or not.  If he can be shown to exist in reality, fine.  But you have to actually show this, which means evidence is necessary.  It's the same with science; I accept many scientific theories as probably true because they fit the facts in evidence, but I don't accept something that a person claims is scientific just on their word alone.

Quote from: Lukvance
Usually, don't you know that something is wrong because you know how to make it right? I don't think you know how to make it right in this instance.
As I keep trying to tell you, that's not how science works.  Science works by examining explanations and trying to see if something contradicts them.  It has nothing to do with what you put here.  For example, if I try to explain why objects rise or fall using Aristotle's theory of elements - that objects rise or fall based on their elemental nature - then I or someone else can find evidence which contradicts this, thus proving it wrong.  That doesn't mean I know what the 'right' explanation is.  It simply means I found something contradictory which disqualified that explanation.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 08, 2014, 01:20:40 AM
Eh, have you ever heard the saying about what happens if someone bad at chess plays against good players long enough?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on July 08, 2014, 08:50:45 AM
Thank you for your input screwtape. How does your reply support jaimehlers claim?

It means your claim is not supported.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: 12 Monkeys on July 08, 2014, 09:22:47 AM
It would be gratifying if he could at least acknowledge that the way the Catholic Church evaluates miracles is not at all scientific. There are no control groups to compare the miracle healing to; and there is no specific criteria to identify what would constitute a miracle from one god, vs a miracle from a different god, or something else disguising itself as a god. And there is no criteria given to distinguish a godly or alien miracle from an as yet undiscovered medical principle.
That's a really strong claim you just dropped on us. Are you now an expert in miracles? Did you find some kind on proof that support your claim?
"There are no control groups" and "there is no specific criteria" is what I think is the most blatant lie in your statement. Please back it up or retract it.
Can you do the same as you are asking,please back it up or retract it ASS HAT
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on July 08, 2014, 09:40:27 AM
Let's all please post with a smidge more civility.  thank you.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 08, 2014, 09:49:44 AM
That's a really strong claim you just dropped on us. Are you now an expert in miracles? Did you find some kind on proof that support your claim?
She's at least as much an expert on miracles as you are.  You're just repeating what someone else says and insisting that other people have to take it seriously because you believe it.  Why are you even slightly surprised that she's challenging you on it?  Especially since you've clearly shown us that you don't understand science well enough to be taken seriously when you say something is 'scientific'.  You've even admitted as much - the only reason you even started trying to concoct a methodology for miracle-detection is because you think that might eventually convince us that your belief is right.  That means you don't have the experience to be taken seriously yet, and probably won't for some time, because you have to understand it before you can effectively use it.

Quote from: Lukvance
"There are no control groups" and "there is no specific criteria" is what I think is the most blatant lie in your statement. Please back it up or retract it.
Nothing you've provided has shown that the Catholic church utilizes control groups or specific criteria in its investigations into the Lourdes healings.  That study you linked earlier that investigated the utility of prayer for healing, despite its flaws, did in fact have a control group and at least tried to use specific criteria.  From everything you've said, the Lourdes investigations didn't involve control groups at all, nor did they have specific criteria.  If you want to convince us that either is true, you must provide evidence in support of it.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 08, 2014, 11:55:19 AM
What are the qualifications to be an expert in miracles?
I believe it works the same way as other experts. What are usually the qualifications to be an expert in a particular field?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 08, 2014, 11:58:48 AM
Lukvance, a control group would be a group of sick people who did not go to Lourdes. Does the Vatican do studies of sick people who do not go to Lourdes, perhaps Hindus or Buddhists, but who also sometimes heal of their illnesses without any scientific explanation? That would be an example of a control group.

You look at this group and see how many got healed without any scientific explanation. Then you compare that number with the treatment group. The treatment group would be the people who got healed at Lourdes without any scientific explanation.

If there were 20 of 100 people who did not go to Lourdes (the control group) but who also healed without any medical intervention, it cannot be concluded that going to Lourdes has anything to do with being healed. The study would not disprove miracle healings. It would only show that apparent miracle healings are not dependent on going to Lourdes. Maybe going to any sacred site for any religion will do. Or maybe doing nothing produces just as many miracle healings as going to Lourdes.

If the 20 of 100 people who were healed without scientific explanation were only those who went to Lourdes, we could conclude that there might be something special about going to Lourdes. The study would not prove miracle healings. It would only show that apparent miracle healings seemed to be dependent on going to Lourdes. (The numbers are actually far, far lower, but let's assume a high number of healings just for the argument.)

Such a study would not be able to distinguish one god who heals at Lourdes from another who heals at Lourdes, or from a powerful helpful alien being who heals at Lourdes. Or from something else going on at Lourdes that is a natural phenomenon (in the air or with the altitude or something) but that science cannot yet detect.

That would require the strict criteria that you say you have, but have not yet produced. Criteria would need to look something like:

If it is the Catholic god who did the healing, you would expect to see x, y, and z.

If it is a different god who did the healing, you would expect to see a, b, and c.

If it is an alien who did the healing, you would expect to see e, f and g.

If it is a scientific principle we do not know about yet that did the healing, you would expect to see h, i and j.

Then you look to see if you have x, y, z or a, b, c, or the others. After that, you can say that it is this or that god or whatever.

But that is not what the Vatican apparently does. They say, if it is a healing without scientific explanation, it is probably a miracle. And if it is a miracle it has to be the Catholic god. That is not scientific, because you have not given the criteria you used to show why it could not be anything else.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 08, 2014, 12:00:25 PM
What are the qualifications to be an expert in miracles?
I believe it works the same way as other experts. What are usually the qualifications to be an expert in a particular field?

Well, for starters, there has to be a field to be an expert in. BSology does not count as a field.  ;D
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on July 08, 2014, 12:00:44 PM
What are the qualifications to be an expert in miracles?
I believe it works the same way as other experts. What are usually the qualifications to be an expert in a particular field?

please answer the question.
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 08, 2014, 12:03:03 PM
What I was getting at is this:  After eliminating "natural causes" as an explanation, do the miracle-hunters actually test for any other gods besides the god of the Bible?
Yes.
I thought it was clear enough in that post #394 :
They can conclude it is from another deity than the one they believe. All events are not miracles. I thought you understood that already.
Thank you for reminding everyone
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 08, 2014, 12:04:31 PM
What are the qualifications to be an expert in miracles?
I believe it works the same way as other experts. What are usually the qualifications to be an expert in a particular field?


please answer the question.
What part of "it works the same way as other experts" do NOT answer the question asked ?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: screwtape on July 08, 2014, 12:07:43 PM
What part of "it works the same way as other experts" do NOT answer the question asked ?

Besides completely evading the question altogether and being so vague as to be useless, I suppose it totally answers the question.

Now, please answer the question.  What are the specific qualifications you think are necessary to be an expert in miracles?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: nogodsforme on July 08, 2014, 12:14:55 PM
Let me help.

Can I go online or to a training center or college, and take a certain number of courses in Miracle Studies?

Do I have to conduct independent research on miracles and write a thesis?

Do I have to serve a Miracle Internship for a time, proving that I am competent in Miracle Studies?

Do I have to get three other Miracle Experts to sign off on my internship and thesis?

Can I earn a certificate or diploma and hang out a sign touting myself as Miracle Expert?

Do I have to pass a yearly exam given by a state board that certifies me as a Miracle Expert?

That's the kind of thing that happens in most fields, like real estate or dentistry or auto mechanics or nursing or massage therapy. How does that compare to becoming an expert in miracles?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 08, 2014, 12:30:21 PM
This will be the last time. I want to give answer to questions not bicker about words.

jaimehlers, are you just trolling us?  Because I cannot believe that after more than a month of posts, you still think that mirroring my arguments is actually going to accomplish anything except to greatly annoy people.  Never mind all this other stuff that you keep trotting out in the hopes that you'll be able to prove your belief that science and God are not equally plausible.  Let's take your bullet points below.

1) It could be the Higgs boson that you and the experts think it is."[/i] - If by "could be" you mean "is".  The observed properties of the boson generated at the LHC matched the ones predicted by Peter Higgs well within the margin of error.  That isn't the end of the story, though.
When she said :
1) It could be a miracle performed by the god you and the priests think it is.
If I answered : "If by "could be" you mean "is".  The observed properties of the miracles matched the ones predicted by the church well within the margin of error.  That isn't the end of the story, though." Would that be acceptable?

Quote from: jaimehlers
2) It could be a different boson altogether -- maybe one that nobody knows about yet."[/i] - This makes no sense.  I can only assume that you don't understand what finding the Higgs boson actually meant.
When she said :
2) It could be a miracle performed by different god altogether--maybe one that nobody knows about yet.
If I answered : "This makes no sense.  I can only assume that you don't understand what finding a miracle actually mean." How would that help the discussion?

Quote from: jaimehlers
3) It could be a powerful alien from a different planet who wants to mess with us."[/i] - Okay, I'll grant that there's a possibility - an infinitesimal chance, really - of there being a Q-like entity which just likes to mess with lesser beings like us.  But it's absurdly unlikely that such a being would waste its time with something like the Higgs boson.  It would be the equivalent of a trillionaire getting his jollies by dripping water from an eyedropper onto the heads of people a thousand feet below.
When she said :
3) It could be a powerful but helpful alien from a different planet-- not a god at all-- who wants to keep its presence hidden from us.[1]
 1. It secretly implants the idea that their god did the healing into the brains of all religious people in the vicinity. The religious people cannot tell the implanted idea came from an alien being.
If I answered : "Okay, I'll grant that there's a possibility - an infinitesimal chance, really - of there being a Q-like entity which just likes to mess with lesser beings like us.  But it's absurdly unlikely that such a being would waste its time with something like healing the sick.  It would be the equivalent of a trillionaire getting his jollies by dripping water from an eyedropper onto the heads of people a thousand feet below." But how would that help the discussion?

4) It could be a scientific principle that we have not yet discovered, something that we will be able to detect when a new instrument is invented next year. At that point we will be able to eliminate 1, 2 and 3. (because we will then have a scientific explanation!?)"- The thing is, Lukvance, we already have a scientific explanation for the Higgs boson.  However, it is very likely that as we refine our instruments and get better data, that we will refine and modify the existing one based on it (the way that science actually works).  After all, the Higgs field was theoretical until two years ago, and we still know very little about it.  About the only thing that finding the Higgs boson accomplished was to demonstrate that the Higgs field existed, which is still really (really, really, really...) important.
When she said :
4) It could be a scientific principle that we have not yet discovered, something that we will be able to detect when a new instrument is invented next year. At that point we will be able to eliminate 1, 2 and 3, because we will then have a scientific explanation.
If I answered : "The thing is, nogodsforme, we already have a scientific explanation for the miracles. However, it is very likely that as we refine our instruments and get better data, that we will refine and modify the existing one based on it (the way that science actually works).  After all, the miracles was theoretical until the event. About the only thing that finding the miracle accomplished was to demonstrate that God existed outside our body which is still really (really, really, really...) important." Would it be ok?


The problem with your rebuttals jaimehlers is that they don't actually detract from science, whereas the same rebuttals used against your belief cause it very severe problems indeed.  Scientific theories aren't certain, and scientists in general know this.  The fact that we have to refine theories over time as our instruments get better doesn't bother people who know how science works. 
Compare that to your belief in the non existence of God, and how you invariably react when it's challenged. Every single time someone has countered your claims that God does not exist (which he does and will as long as there's no actual counter explanation), you've come right back by saying something akin to, "well, I told you HE DOES NOT!"

Thank you
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Astreja on July 08, 2014, 12:41:11 PM
They can conclude it is from another deity than the one they believe. All events are not miracles.

But have the RCC examiners ever attributed a healing to another deity?  You say that they can come to that conclusion, but having the option to do something doesn't automatically mean that it'll get done.  In fact, why would a board of examiners from a monotheistic religion even bother to go looking for other gods?
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 08, 2014, 01:12:21 PM
Quote from: Lukvance
If not, what keeps you to find a study where people prayed Satan? And has the result you wish it to have? (prayer makes things worse)
Every time I think we're starting to make some small amount of progress, you say something like this.  Can you at least try to understand that to most of the people on this forum, your god is no more real than Odin, or Zeus, or whatever other god I might name in any pantheon?  I realize that you might have trouble with this, but you have to try (just as atheists can accept that you believe something is true, even if they themselves think it's imaginary).  Otherwise there's going to be no end of frustration on both sides of the conversation.
Of course I know about most people on this forum and their beliefs about God and gods.
It does not make it OK to say "See! they prayed God and it didn't work, it made things worse!" when you are not talking about the same God that I am demonstrating the existence of in this discussion.
If you want to debunk my arguments don't invent other god that you also don't believe exist to debunk them, use mine! (I am not proving the existence of the others)

Quote from: jaimehlers
Aside from that I would say that there's not sufficient evidence to determine what or how much actual effect prayer has, or whether it matters which god is being prayed to, although I will concede that I found no studies which showed a net negative effect on people being prayed for unknowingly.  You should not assume that it's your god that's responsible for the effects, though, because that leads straight back to the circular reasoning I was criticizing you about earlier.
The study I shared with you was about people praying God and sick people feeling the POSITIVE effect it has[1]. You have now at least one study proving that praying God will change things FOR THE BETTER.
 1. "These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU." - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf
Title: Re: Does God exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains?
Post by: Lukvance on July 08, 2014, 01:20:25 PM
Thank you for your input screwtape. How does your reply support jaimehlers claim?
It means your claim is not supported.
What? why?
I said :
I don't seem to be able to find any beside that one (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf) who is saying quite the