Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science does NOT use only hard empirical evidence, it also uses inference - and there is an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence from DNA and the anthropic principle that there is a god that exists as first cause and prime mover of the universe, and life in the universe - which is reflected in many statements over decades by secular scientists such as physicists, Astrophysicists, cosmologists, and mathematicians.

Science cannot prove the existence of a god that is personal and can be known such as the Christian god - that requires apologetics- but absolutely logically infers the existence of a creator god, but that fact is denied by anti-theists.

The anthropic principle says nothing about a god - not even the strong anthropic principle does.

Strictly speaking, science doesn't prove things; formal proof is reserved for formal systems, e.g. logic, maths.

 

[NxNW]

there is an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence from DNA

DNA is created every day without supernatural intervention. Two drunk teenagers can do it. There is no miracle involved.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK, you didn't like my explanation of how quantum states are prepared so you know what state they are...

Vague, non-answer.

I'm not going to go in the experimental specifics, but maybe I can explain it better.

You have some sort of source that generates some quantum mechanical object (atom, photon, electron) in a specific state through some series of manipulations. You adjust it until it is nearly pure in generating the state you want by placing a detector that can measure the state immediately after it is generated. When you have a source of the purity you want (say 99.9% are in the desired state) then you remove the detector and leave the generator alone and it should create the state you want so long as the generator is left the same. After the experiment you put the detector back up to the generator and recheck the production. If it's still 99.9% the thing you wanted then you can generally assume that the input states of your experiment were similarly pure (especially if you can monitor non-destructively the properties of the generator apparatus).

When you analyze you data you can't know that an *specific* state was prepared correctly, but you can know statistically about the group of them.

I tried to find an analogy yesterday, but couldn't. Today I realized this is a problem of "destructive testing" and it exists all over the place, especially in manufacturing. If I want to know that my factory is making strong bricks or steel beams I can set up my manufacturing apparatus in a way that *should* make the product with the properties I expect, but to *know* I must pull some out of the production line and test them in ways that cause them to fail. If I test every brick to failure, then all my factory will produce is broken bricks. But, if I sample them after they leave the kiln to measure the forces that are require to make them fail, I can discover reasonably assume that I know the quality of my bricks.

If you want to see the specific procedures in the "generator" stage of an entanglement experiment, read the "experimental setup" portion of the specific paper.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Faster or sLower both would produce stars not conducive to life.

So you claim. Don't know why yet...

I did a little experiment- the copy and paste you criticized is from this guy:

Taeil Bai

• Senior Research Scientist: Center for Space Science and Astrophysics, Wilcox Solar Observatory, Stanford University
• Associate Investigator, Solar Oscillations Investigation (SOI)

I think you mean "google search" rather than "experiment".

So knowing which "authority" sourced this claim doesn't bring me any closer to a reason *why* changing the speed of light would alter stellar output as to make life prohibited.

As of this post (#439) that information has not been presented to the readers of this thread. I will not hold my breath waiting.

 

[Mountainmike]

Have you been reading this thread?

I cited many things inexplicable by science, indeed confirmed by scientific testing , that point at theistic origin. Eg the so called Eucharistic miracles, Cochabamba , prophesies fulfilled , phenomena eg Fatima performed “ so all would see and believe “ , filmed stigmata etc.

The problem is refusal to engage with the evidence, preferring to repeat the mantra : no evidence..

The question is who do you trust?

People believe forensics, right up to the point it concludes something they don’t like! Look at Eucharistic miracles.
Only then do they dispute competence or impartiality!

There are hundreds of phenomena I could choose
Here another one.

Do you believe atheist doctors?

Alexandrina da Costa of balasar . Portuguese. Christian Mystic, paralysed and bedridden.
Lived in first half of 20th century.
It was claimed she did not eat or drink, urinate or defecate for decades other than occasional Eucharistic wafer.

The secular authorities , determined to debunk religion and her inedia, demanded a hospital trial in order to expose what they assumed was a fraud. The investigators were determined to find fraud, not exonerate her, designed the process accordingly.

For 15 days supervised by atheist doctors she lived under 24 hour watch in a hospital. She passed the test.

They tightened security, forced her to spend 15 days more.
She still passed the test , and weighing her, showed she had not lost weight.

In the end a panel including the doctors wrote a report , stating “inexplicable by science”.

I’ll wager you now dispute atheist doctors! So the question is credulity, who would you believe?

Alexandrina is not the only one, there have been others, like Marthe robin.
Therese Neumann , also stigmatic was the same.

But she also spoke as a semi illiterate peasant flawless Aramaic as judged by the top language professors, a language she can never have studied. How?

Another stigmatic , filmed start to finish , Katya Rivas wrote in languages she was never taught ( eg polish) . How?

Focus on just this one aspect:
She would write for an hour at a time or more, filmed continuously, never stopping, slowing, thinking, or erasing, including a mass of accurate quotes and biblical references. How? Try it!
She wrote many books this way.

She said she was simply writing down What was dictated to her.
No author can do it. During the locutions her brain was analysed. It showed delta waves whilst conscious. Neurologists say is impossible.

And just as a technical nicety. Science is an investigative process used to construct a man made model of the universe. Science can not conclude “ God” , till someone puts god in the model. So the fact science doesn’t conclude God is simply a truism.
All science can do is find evidence that points at theistic origin, that doesn’t fit the model, and undermines a fundamental tenet of it. It is there in abundance.

No theres no evidence God exists. Even those who believe he does, don't agree on who or what God is. And as for the bible, it grabs at silly proposals - eg explaining the diversity of languages was because someone tried to build a tall tower and God didn't want it getting too close to heaven - or that God got angry so he destroyed every man woman and child and animal - except Noah and his family.

Science really does put the notion of God to the test, and thus far no one can provide evidence.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Gods word interacts with me. It showed me my selfishness.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Don't know who you're replying to so I'll have a go...

Have you been reading this thread?

I've been trying not to (at least your sub-thread).

I cited many things inexplicable by science, indeed confirmed by scientific testing , that point at theistic origin. Eg the so called Eucharistic miracles, Cochabamba , prophesies fulfilled , phenomena eg Fatima performed “ so all would see and believe “ , filmed stigmata etc.

Frankly there are a lot of "unexplained" phenomena occurring in people's ordinary lives that just aren't worth the effort to figure out. So many of your things sound like a run-down from one of those 80s programs like "unsolved mysteries" or "believe it or not" with the house where things roll up hill (an optical illusion), the ghost reports, the images of Mary or Jesus on toast, spontaneous human combustion, the hindu statues that cried milk, the sighting of Mary (or was it Jesus) on the window of an office building that turned out to be a diffraction layer of soap residue, etc., etc.

I had no idea so many of my fellow Catholics were into such miraculous trivialities. If I'd known it then perhaps I would have been more accepting of the non-Catholic paranormal, or perhaps (and I hope more likely) I would have rejected the Church earlier.

 

[Mountainmike]

Thanks for the reply.

I was replying to zoii - that post I quoted in which the poster stated
“ no evidence”

There is little point in my repeating earlier statements, so I added a couple more.

I have already noted that there are pious frauds , which do not help sorting wheat from chaff, also phenomena which can not be verified either way which are therefore little more than hearsay. You will note I never raise those.

To counter your assertion, you will notice I stick to phenomena where science or medicine has commented, or there is clear evidence extant, like continuous film footage.

You comment before studying these specific phenomena, then generalise.

I start by asking who people trust, noting that they only seem to trust forensic labs and doctors only for as long as they substantiate atheist world view.

It was A hospital in Porto that certified the inedia of Alexandrina da Costa.

Atheist doctors intent on debunking it, were the signatories to the report, so they are not easily fooled. Not least because da Costa was paralysed. She could not leave the room, she did not leave for well over a month.

These phenomena are Not easily dismissed.

It is a frustration that posters like zoii state “ no evidence” then never respond when evidence is posted!

Don't know who you're replying to so I'll have a go...

I've been trying not to (at least your sub-thread).



Frankly there are a lot of "unexplained" phenomena occurring in people's ordinary lives that just aren't worth the effort to figure out. So many of your things sound like a run-down from one of those 80s programs like "unsolved mysteries" or "believe it or not" with the house where things roll up hill (an optical illusion), the ghost reports, the images of Mary or Jesus on toast, spontaneous human combustion, the hindu statues that cried milk, the sighting of Mary (or was it Jesus) on the window of an office building that turned out to be a diffraction layer of soap residue, etc., etc.

I had no idea so many of my fellow Catholics were into such miraculous trivialities. If I'd known it then perhaps I would have been more accepting of the non-Catholic paranormal, or perhaps (and I hope more likely) I would have rejected the Church earlier.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Atheist doctors intent on debunking it, we’re the signatories to the report, so they are not easily fooled. Not least because da Costa was paralysed. She could not leave the room.

Are "atheist doctors" just the one that don't conform to your religion? If you identify doctors by religious opinion it doesn't really inspire confidence.

On a more broad note, I have no idea what you are talking about (as I said I've been ignoring your part of the thread) and your posts tend to both ramble and meander. It fails to interest.

Bizarre, unrepeatable, case studies don't really fit the title of this thread, now do they?

These phenomena are Not easily dismissed.

Quite the opposite. They hold no interest.

 

[Zoii]

nexplicable by science, indeed confirmed by scientific testing , that point at theistic origin. Eg the so called Eucharistic miracles

No miracle has ever been proven - that you choose to accept someone's proclamation of miracles, doesn't make it proof.

prophesies fulfilled

Prophecies of the bible are vague in the extreme. Look around this site and observe the variance Christians have on any prophecy within the bible - Revelations is proof in point. How many Christian organisations have doomsday prophecies and repeatedly seen their predicted day come and go. How embarrassing - well no - they just make another date.

filmed stigmata

Every event of stigmata that has been subjected to rigorous controls has found to be a fraud

Do you believe atheist doctors?

depends on what they are saying

Alexandrina da Costa of balasar

The only case recordings are within religious texts and sites - The stories surrounded this person are regarded as being exaggerated at best, and totally fraudulent at worst.

Science is an investigative process used to construct a man-made model of the universe.

No its a mathematical map of what IS in evidence.

But look you believe it - that's fine but don't go confuse belief with proven fact

 

[Mountainmike]

My suggestion is you engage with the evidence.

There have been many so called Eucharistic miracles analysed by multiple forensic labs on several continents. They are impossible to explain , impossible to fake. They are traumatised human heart myocardium showing recent life because of leucocytes that should not survive in vitro but they do, that alone is inexplicable . Intimately mingling with bread in some. Some show mitichondrial not nuclear DNA sequence. A fraud would have a nuclear sequence. All blood group AB

Ditto such as Cochabamba statue. Filmed continuously , tears & blood, with no possibility of internal channels. human blood, traumatised epithelium, even thorn cells…

I am speaking of recent prophesies - eg Fatima , (multiple prophecies) including the so called miracle of the sun. Also the start of WW II

Also Prophecy of the stigmata of Katya Rivas

Note this stigmata (and others ) have NEVER been shown as fraud , filmed start to finish with many witnesses , no possibility of self inflicted, even the healing was special - no plastic surgeon coukd have healed the wounds in that time. You are Ill informed.

And BTW, there is no possible proof of a miracle. As I pointed out the scientific model is man made, so until God is put in the model, the model cannot conclude God. That’s a limitation of science, not the phenomena. Until gravity is in the model the model cannot conclude gravity as an explanation.

There is plenty of scientific evidence of phenomena consistent with theistic origin that can never be reconciled. Eg the HOSPITAL CERTIFIED inedia of Alexandrina.


I suggest you actually study it. Then decide.

No miracle has ever been proven - that you choose to accept someone's proclamation of miracles, doesn't make it proof.


Prophecies of the bible are vague in the extreme. Look around this site and observe the variance Christians have on any prophecy within the bible - Revelations is proof in point. How many Christian organisations have doomsday prophecies and repeatedly seen their predicted day come and go. How embarrassing - well no - they just make another date.


Every event of stigmata that has been subjected to rigorous controls has found to be a fraud

depends on what they are saying


The only case recordings are within religious texts and sites - The stories surrounded this person are regarded as being exaggerated at best, and totally fraudulent at worst.


No its a mathematical map of what IS in evidence.

But look you believe it - that's fine but don't go confuse belief with proven fact

 

[NxNW]

My suggestion is you engage with the evidence.

There have been many so called Eucharistic miracles analysed by multiple forensic labs on several continents. They are impossible to explain.

As Dame Vaako wisely observed, mysteries are not miracles.

 

[chad kincham]

Yeah - look as soon as you threw in the word "circumstantial" you're really admitting to zero evidence for the existence of God. Coincidence or circumstantial evidence is not fact. I hear this a lot and it's such nonsense - I prayed to God I'd do well in my exam - and I did. So God must have done it for me - Proof.

Wake up and smell the coffee - ToE does not qualify as science either, yet you are perfectly willing to accept that.

I’m not talking about answered prayer as proof, and that’s not what those secular scientists mean when they say there is overwhelming evidence that a god exists.

 

[NxNW]

Wake up and smell the coffee - ToE does not qualify as science.

It makes testable predictions, such that if the predictions are false it disproves the theory. You find that fossil rabbit in the precambrian yet?

 

[Mountainmike]

It makes testable predictions, such that if the predictions are false it disproves the theory. You find that fossil rabbit in the precambrian yet?

Abiogenesis is pure conjecture.

 

[Mountainmike]

Not a useful platitude

Engage with the evidence

So called Eucharistic miracles are more than a mystery. They are where science and theism meet. Many forensic labs on several continents involved .

Live cells where none existed before.

As Dame Vaako wisely observed, mysteries are not miracles.

 

[NxNW]

Abiogenesis is pure conjecture.

We're talking about the Theory of Evolution.

 

[NxNW]

Engage with the evidence

So called Eucharistic miracles are more than a mystery. They are where science and theism meet. Many forensic labs on several continents involved .

The fact that you call them "so called" is telling.

 

[Mountainmike]

The fact that you call them "so called" is telling.

Just being precise.
It’s a name they are given.
Science is too limited to prove the cause of the change
Science demonstrates the change is inexplicable.
The context implies cause. It affirms a core tenet of Catholicism.

 

[NxNW]

Science demonstrates the change is inexplicable.

Let me know when that happens.