Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[Confused-by-christianity]

How are NDEs evidence for God interacting with the world?

Did you read the bit of my post where I said "I don't know" and added "I doubt it"

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All the usual tropes / apriori prejudice . Many of these scientists were not believers although subsequently became so.
What matters is their scientific discipline.

Lets analyse this statement.
"I'm saying that if it could have been substituted, it is poor evidence for the claim."
Use critical thinking. How can you substitute with something you cannot reproduce or make?
Thats no evidence for substitution at all! These are floating lego bricks, not lego bricks found in questionable places whose providence IS the evidence.

Several of them took their own samples. The chain of custody was themselves

Reality is none of you are addressing the science: you are hoping to find a hole in it without actually studying it.
Ive mentioned the eucharistic miracles (there are hundreds, some more recent ones have been tested) - - an inexplicable aspect of Fatima - cochamamba statue ( no provenance problem with those samples)- stigmata of Rivas, inedia of alexandrina- the list of inexplicable phenomena backed by evidence is long. A lot more where they came from. The apparitions of zeitoun fascinate me. The doves of Bombarral also make people think what they know about animals. Nobody addressed the science or evidence of them.
The closest we got: One of our posters claimed he had a "natural explanation" for Fatima. He declined to tell us what it was.

So , in absence of talking science, I will end on this.
The most unscientific statement ever made was "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence"
Because it is a purely subjective bar, not a scientific one, raised only against things sceptics dont "Like"

So lets use the various bars and that presented here against the darling of scepticisim - abiogenesis.

Show me the provenance of the tests done on the first cell that happened from inert chemicals. The peer reviered papers that analyzed it. The laboratory determined structure of it? Or any of the early cells will do. Its not enough for you to show me it on a slide. I need provenance from where it was found so it wasnt substituted. Oh - I forgot. There are no cells, slides, papers, studies, forensic scientists. Theres no structure for it, nopath conjectured to it, no path from it, and certainly no provenance at all. Yet sceptics all accept it is true. Dawkins called it "as close to a fact as you can get without proof" He should have lost his chair for that, certainly been kicked out of the PUST chairmanship.


I am a scientist. I am not actually opposed to the conjecture.
I am not opposed to abiogenesis a priori, although we can argue long and hard about the role of design in life. But all I see for abiogenesis is conjecture. No evidence it actually happened. It is an extraordinary claim with no evidence, let alone extraordinary it ever happened.... Sorry Mssrs sagan and Dawkins. You scored an own goal with that!


On the other hand, I have documentary evidence of a hundred eucharistic miracles, physical evidence of many of them exist, actual forensic reports whose custody chain is a lot better than abiogenesis.

And here is the kicker. Leucocytes say they either are, or were recently ALIVE!!!!! And they cannot be faked by any known means. How do you make recently live human myocardium that doesnt profile DNA? That pushes out of bread not in?

So the score remains on forensic evidence for origin of a living thing.
Eucharistic Miracles 6 (at least)
Abiogenesis 0

Which one of us has only faith in an idea, which one of us has evidence?

When the score changes, perhaps someone would let me know.

Then there are all the other fascinating things for which there is evidence.
You would be surprised I (as indeed is the church) am as sceptical of all of them, as any sceptic, until I find parts that are inexplicable.
Like a peasant speaking an ancient language no longer used that she can never have learned, but leading professors vouched for her use of it. Therese Neumman. Aramaic. It passes my inexplicable test.

You're a believer, we get it.

But you say you're a scientist - as a scientist are you not puzzled by the lack of published papers on this? the lack of data in the public domain? How could we independently verify any of this?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did you read the bit of my post where I said "I don't know" and added "I doubt it"

Yes; but then you suggested NDEs, so I was asking why - how do you think NDEs might indicate God interacting with the world?

If you don't think they might, why suggest it at all?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Yes; but then you suggested NDEs, so I was asking why - how do you think NDEs might indicate God interacting with the world?

If you don't think they might, why suggest it at all?

So,
within the context of myself fully admitting
"I don't know"
and adding that
"I doubt..." there is satisfactory evidence...
I point the OP to check NDE accounts...
There may be something in there.

I never said I "...think NDEs might indicate God interacting with the world?". I offered another place to check for evidence. I didn't say they were evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I never said I "...think NDEs might indicate God interacting with the world?". I offered another place to check for evidence. I didn't say they were evidence.

OK... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

OK... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But they might be evidence though hahaha

 

[Zoii]

@Mountainmike I'm glad you feel that there is evidence of a God. I'm sure it gives you great comfort. I can't share your views or faith as there is nothing I have seen or read that confirms said evidence. Take on board that the scientific process relies on a phenomenon being repeatable with a high degree of confidence and under strict controls. I know you wish it was so - but nothing in religions of any type can substantiate their various claims - whether it's that God gave birth to himself via a virgin who called him Jesus, or whether all languages were spawned because someone tried to build a tower to heaven, or Mohammed taking flight to God in a fiery chariot. To date, like all these claims, they rely on faith.

 

[Mountainmike]

Two issues.

Its unfair to say it is not public domain. There is plenty in public domain. It just isnt free.

Neither are any academic journals or access such as pubmed. Indeed I have professional subscriptions cost me a few hundred a year. The last books I bought on quantum theory were just that. Paid books!

All sorts of DVDs videos out there take just tesoriero " blood of christ" series, stones will cry out, unseen etc. And so on. It cost him a fortune to do these investigations (some with willessee the investigative journalist).

When I downloaded the Italian analysis of lanciano miracle from an italian science journal it cost me significant money. There are of course now english books on the subject.

On topics like the shroud, it is amazing that many of the papers are free in retrospect

As for the refusal of academia to get involved, indeed the ridicule ( and in some cases silencing of those who do get involved ) you tell me? If it is such a slamdunk to discount the evidence you would have thought that universities would take great pride in mocking the evidence. But they dont.
Soubaniecs career was nearly wrecked for daring to say what her investigations showed.

Tesoriero, relates several encounters when he wanted to test samples at various universities , germany, australia, USA who when told what the samples were, simply refused to get involved. An australian university more or less founded on darwinism, stated it would not test it simply on the basis that if he was right they would have to close the university, or so they said! In the end he found it hard to find any that would do testing for him.

Some of the research is done in universities on behalf of diocesan clients. So the tears of Akita, the blood of the eucharistic miracles of Naju, other cochambamba tested in australia were done in universities, but resulted in forensic reports not papers as happens for private clietns.

But having seen how shockingly badly the establishment oxford, arizona. zurich etc behaved over the shroud dating, why on earth would investigators want to sign up for more of the same? You speak of potential (but unproven) believer bias. Sceptic bias is demonstrably worse. Ask ray rogers - the antics of scientists intent on disproving the authenticity of the shroud, they lost all sense of proper scientific behaviour.

It is so much easier to get paid forensic reports from paid forensic labs.

But having been in many scientific conferences. I dont hold academia in such awe as you do. Some of the arguments are pathetic. They are paid for ideas, and papers are in the main plausibility not proof.
The fact dawkins now states that life came from soup and that it is as close to a fact as you can get, show sceptics have distorted academia.

As I pointed out, the pharma industry for example has to work to a far higher standard than university biopharm labs.

You're a believer, we get it.

But you say you're a scientist - as a scientist are you not puzzled by the lack of published papers on this? the lack of data in the public domain? How could we independently verify any of this?

 

[Mountainmike]

Like abiogenesis you mean.
Falls over laughing!! At the average sceptics idea of science.
Or the hopelessly unscientific botch the shroud daters published...

End of conversation unless you discuss the actual science.

Like why were leucocytes present?
I like evidence and science, not sceptic apriori prejudice which seems to pervade all that they say.

The criminal courts must be a joke to you...they put people in jail for life, without an academic paper anywhere to be seen. They dont shoot the victim ten times to make sure the murder is repeatable or witnessed. They just deduce from the samples left behind. Like eucharistic miracle evidence

@Mountainmike I'm glad you feel that there is evidence of a God. I'm sure it gives you great comfort. I can't share your views or faith as there is nothing I have seen or read that confirms said evidence. Take on board that the scientific process relies on a phenomenon being repeatable with a high degree of confidence and under strict controls. I know you wish it was so - but nothing in religions of any type can substantiate their various claims - whether it's that God gave birth to himself via a virgin who called him Jesus, or whether all languages were spawned because someone tried to build a tower to heaven, or Mohammed taking flight to God in a fiery chariot. To date, like all these claims, they rely on faith.

 

[partinobodycular]

I want you to START- for the very first time - addressing the science, not sceptic apriori prejudice against it.

As I've already stated a number of times, I can't address the science because you haven't given us any. I have no access to any reports, only claims about what's in them. The mere claim that tests showed abnormalities isn't sufficient.

What tests? What abnormalities? Are those abnormalities definitive or subject to interpretation? And perhaps most importantly, was there independent verification?

But what I can address, at least where the information is available, is your claim of the expertise of the forensic team, and so far Zugibe, Lazo, and Compagno haven't fared very well.

So I'm BEGGING you, give me the science.

So what is Your source?

Eduardo Sánchez Lazo, médico forense, se alejó de Dios, confió en la “Santa Muerte” por sugerencia de un brujo, pero Cristo se le reveló investigando un milagro eucarístico

La hostia sangrante de Tixtla, «un corazón vivo que sufre» Milagro eucarístico, MÉXICO 21 de octubre 2006

El periplo de un forense: fe, crisis, brujos… hasta analizar la Hostia sangrante de Tixtla en México

Sceptical websites, magazines and other nut jobs are happy to make such stuff up as yours to profit out of the prejudice of sceptics. Scepticism is a big profitable industry. So where did you get that?

As you can see, not a skeptical website among them, so I don't know what would possibly motivate them to "make such stuff up".

I would be interested in your comment on the incompetent failure of the shroud dating labs, whose breach of provenance , proper protocol and lack of scientific prudence were documented. It destroys the only discredited straw that sceptics cling on to with the shroud.

That is so hilarious. You're pointing out the supposed incompetence of the shroud's forensic investigator's, while maintaining that the results of another team's forensic work is beyond reproach.

That seems a bit biased to me.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the same level of detail in the Tixtla Miracle as you do for the Shroud. I'm supposed to just take their word for it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So what is Your source?
Sceptical websites, magazines and other nut jobs are happy to make such stuff up as yours to profit out of the prejudice of sceptics.

So wanting things to be investigated by people without an interest in them being true before you accept them makes you a "nut job"? OK, dude.

Scepticism is a big profitable industry.

Not nearly the size of the "industry" that is selling false cures, relics, miracles, apparitions, horoscopes, etc.

It's tough to be in the honest "lost wealth", "itinerant roofing", "Florida swamp land", or "wolf detection" businesses when so many before you have lied and scammed.

The miracle and relic business is also filled with frauds and scams. There are enough bits of the "True Cross" to build a house and enough "Genuine Crucifiction Nails" to hold it together. Some *must* be false, and until any are demonstrated to have even originated at the appropriate time and place, it is best to assume that they are all fraudulent.

The history of such events require that the investigators claiming a find of a true miracle (or relic) need to be above reproach. Several of the people involved in this investigation do not seem to fit the bill.

 

[Mountainmike]

So Lazo is forensic and legal analyst. Who lost a position in the world recession.
Is back as a chair of legal and forensic medicine, doing forensic medicine, a job he would not have got if there was a shred of doubt on his competence or credibility.

You want to make this about people not evidence. You point at Castarnon, I listed labs.
I point out that 2+2=4 if it is said by a believer or sceptic.

It is a sad fact in this world.
-Italian phenomena were written in italian. ( i did obtain the original linoli paper on Lanciano, because sceptic as I am, I wanted to confirm later english translations were faithful)
-The phenomena in poland are written in polish. Although Tesoriero got it translated into english. Excerpts in his book.
-Those in spanish speaking south america and mexico are in spanish.
-The french phenomena (eg the fascinating linceul of argentuil) are in french. As is surprisingly the best book on the doves of bombarral, written by Barthias)
-The portuguese phenomena are ....you guessed it!

The best things in life dont come easy.

The forensic reports are in that book. They verify what he says.
You will see that the photos in the precis out on the web are indeed from signed forensic reports.

The sections are heart, the leucocytes exist, so does the lack of DNA. Which bit of that do you disagree with?

Its the ony subject I will now discuss with you. The science issues.
If itis fake. How?

As for the incompetent RC daters.
I have every respect for the scientists involved in the shroud. Except the RC daters & such as mcrone.. Read Merinos and meachams book - you wills see how they subverted the tests and made them meaningless.

So I respect
Rogers headed sturp (not a christian or believer) ended up disproving the date.
Adler did the porphyrin stuff ( Jewish descent) as was - and showed Mcrone was an idiot.
Shwalb Photographer.
Meacham was the only archeologist involved having dated textiles, and he expressed gross reservations before they even the test, during and after.

The reaity is a heap of evidence shows the shroud is a genuine crucifixion relic. Only the date disagreed. So the onus was on the daters to explain, why the other tests didnt fit. (as adler did with mcrones chemistry). Reality is the RC date was a dud because of tester incompetence and ignoring all advice given.

Talk about leucocytes, or science if you want me to reply again.

As I've already stated a number of times, I can't address the science because you haven't given us any. I have no access to any reports, only claims about what's in them. The mere claim that tests showed abnormalities isn't sufficient.

What tests? What abnormalities? Are those abnormalities definitive or subject to interpretation? And perhaps most importantly, was there independent verification?

But what I can address, at least where the information is available, is your claim of the expertise of the forensic team, and so far Zugibe, Lazo, and Compagno haven't fared very well.

So I'm BEGGING you, give me the science.



Eduardo Sánchez Lazo, médico forense, se alejó de Dios, confió en la “Santa Muerte” por sugerencia de un brujo, pero Cristo se le reveló investigando un milagro eucarístico

La hostia sangrante de Tixtla, «un corazón vivo que sufre» Milagro eucarístico, MÉXICO 21 de octubre 2006

El periplo de un forense: fe, crisis, brujos… hasta analizar la Hostia sangrante de Tixtla en México



As you can see, not a skeptical website among them, so I don't know what would possibly motivate them to "make such stuff up".



That is so hilarious. You're pointing out the supposed incompetence of the shroud's forensic investigator's, while maintaining that the results of another team's forensic work is beyond reproach.

That seems a bit biased to me.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the same level of detail in the Tixtla Miracle as you do for the Shroud. I'm supposed to just take their word for it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Like abiogenesis you mean.
Falls over laughing!! At the average sceptics idea of science.

Abiogenesis (simple life from pre-biotic chemistry) has nothing to do with your alleged eucharistic transformation miracle (plant tissues turning into animal tissues).

Abiogenesis is also not with in the scope of the overall thread. Most claims about it don't involve any god, but even if a god did cause abiogenesis it was ~4 billion years ago which is not by any stretch of the imagination a continuing presence of god in the world. Evidence of that would have to come from elsewhere.

And it's not what "average skeptics" think about science. It's what we (the participants of this thread) think.

 

[Mountainmike]

Badly edited hans... I struggled to find your remark in your quote.
I agree. There is indeed a fake relic industry. I am pointing out there is just as big a sceptic prejudice fake science industry.

You cannot trust either side apriori.

There are indeed a crazy faction in sceptics. I didnt say all sceptics were. But then there are those who think that of ALL believers without exception. .

But all of this hits home and where life comes from , or has come from.

The EM samples evidence they are or were recently alive, apparently appeared from an inert source. And it is hard /impossible to see how they can have been faked

The sceptic conjecture for all life is abiogenesis. Yet it fails to get over the same bar of "provenance" "repeatbaiity" "evidence" , sceptics use to judge EM by.
That was the point I made.

So yes... there is more evience of life from EM than abiogenesis.
Becuase there is at least some evidence EM actually happened!

So unless someone wants to disscuss the evidence rather than apriori prejudice against it. Like how was it faked? I am off...

So wanting things to be investigated by people without an interest in them being true before you accept them makes you a "nut job"? OK, dude.



Not nearly the size of the "industry" that is selling false cures, relics, miracles, apparitions, horoscopes, etc.

It's tough to be in the honest "lost wealth", "itinerant roofing", "Florida swamp land", or "wolf detection" businesses when so many before you have lied and scammed.

The miracle and relic business is also filled with frauds and scams. There are enough bits of the "True Cross" to build a house and enough "Genuine Crucifiction Nails" to hold it together. Some *must* be false, and until any are demonstrated to have even originated at the appropriate time and place, it is best to assume that they are all fraudulent.

The history of such events require that the investigators claiming a find of a true miracle (or relic) need to be above reproach. Several of the people involved in this investigation do not seem to fit the bill.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Badly edited hans...
I agree. There is indeed a fake relic industry. I am pointing out there is just as big a sceptic prejudice fake science industry. You cannot trust either side apriori.

The fake science industry?

 

[Mountainmike]

The fake science industry?

I will spare you quotes from some of the well known books - like well known sceptic author who claimed "it didnt look like blood" (to him sat a metre away) ergo it was a pious fraud. Same guy won a sceptical society "critical thinking award". In the land of the blind, it seems even he can be king. He makes a lot of money out of giving sceptics exactly what they want to hear, and labelling the books under brand "science".

Indeed when Dawkins claims that life from chemical soup is "as close to a fact as you can get without proof"...does that sound like science to you? or pseudoscience? . His misunderstandings on the unlikelihood of life (ask penrose) from chemical soup have made Dawkins a fortune. I am guessing he sees his average reader a little like JT barnum did. "theres a sucker born every minute"

When Mcrone claimed the shroud "blood" was the result of iron based dyes- He knew or must have known that the correlation of what he found was unrelated to the density of marking so was not the core component of the mark. As adler - porphyrin chemist (and non believer) showed, he broke some fundamental rules to say it. Mcrone was after finding anything he could to attempt to discredit the shroud. I think it was said in bad faith, not just bad science, and to me that is fake science. His other success was misdating the vinland map. Who would have thought it...

 

[Mountainmike]

Anyway all. You will be glad to know I am off. Yes really. Catching an aeroplane. Unlikely I will get chance to tune in now for another couple of weeks.

 

[partinobodycular]

So unless someone wants to disscuss the evidence rather than apriori prejudice against it. Like how was it faked? I am off...

You don't seem to understand my objection.

You want me to critique scientific evidence that I don't have.

Think of it this way. What if the people who carbon dated the shroud had only put out a statement affirming that the shroud dated from the 13th or 14th centuries, and that statement was accompanied by some pictures of the shroud and a chart showing their results.

Now on what basis would you be able to objectively question those results?

Answer, you couldn't because you wouldn't have enough information.

That's my problem with the Tixtla Miracle, I have some claims, some pictures, and a couple of almost meaningless charts. But I have nothing on which to base a scientific objection.

Now you seem to think that I can go find it somewhere, but I've tried and failed. On the other hand you claim to possess said evidence, but refuse to post it.

So that being the case I consider myself justified in summarily dismissing the Tixtla Miracle as another case of overzealous nonsense.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm a bit dissappointed, Mike. I thought I was going to get an entire area of science or institution that was producing fake science (I could name a couple), instead I got three "examples" of which only one made any sense, since it was the only one with a well known person in it. (Your posts would be easier to comprehend if you 1. edited them, 2. used proper punctuation and capitalization, and 3. asked yourself if it is reasonable for people who are not inside your head and reading the same "miracle" literature and sites that you clearly do would recognize.

So let's look at the only one I can make heads or tails of...

Indeed when Dawkins claims that life from chemical soup is "as close to a fact as you can get without proof"...does that sound like science to you? or pseudoscience? . His misunderstandings on the unlikelihood of life (ask penrose) from chemical soup have made Dawkins a fortune. I am guessing he sees his average reader a little like JT barnum did. "theres a sucker born every minute"

I don't think (Richard) Dawkins got famous or rich from proclaiming that "primordial soup to life" was nearly factual without actual proof.

He got famous and modestly wealthy because people liked his books on evolutionary biology. They are quite good and easy to read. It was only because of that reputation that he was able to write his polemic about God and sell a lot of copies. [BTW, I hated that book when it came out as it had the potential to force pro-science and pro-evolution believers to choose between faith and science where science would mostly lose. I still haven't read it.]

Dawkins is right on one thing here though. The Earth used to be hot and incapable of sustaining life and later it had life. (Evidence from geology.) Thus, if there is no god, then life must have arisen naturally on Earth or traveled from another planet. (That only pushes the abiogenesis elsewhere.) We know biomolecules can be formed in simple chemical experiments and are found in interstellar space. In the last few decades numerous experiments have show the development of pre-biotic self-replicating chemistry and various scenarios for transforming that to primitive life. Which path and in what environment it happened on Earth we don't know, but the gist of Dawkins statement holds. Let me rephrase it:

Based on our current understanding of the early Earth and pre-biotic chemistry, there is no need for an intentional intervention by any being for life to have arisen on early Earth.

 

[Mountainmike]

I too could name fake science areas too, but this has gone long enough..

Dawkins seamlessly integrates evolutionary biology with his a priori opinion so it sounds like science absusing a position of trust. He still admits he has no idea how life began....but then claims to say , "it must have been like this..."..he still has no conception of how staggeringly unlikely a random chance unguided accident from chemical soup is. But that is his faith it happened.

Based on our current understanding of the early Earth and pre-biotic chemistry, there is no need for an intentional intervention by any being for life to have arisen on early Earth.

You meant of course "belief" not "understanding"

You have absolutely no evidence or even any a plausible pathway for what you said, so it isnt science it is conjecture. Im not actually against it. I just treat it as what it is. Conjecture in absence of any meaningful evidence.

The minimum cell we know is orders of magnitude more complex than our most complex chemical factories. It is self designing, self evolving, self repairing, complete with massive self writing software. Wow it is complex.But No hint of when where or how, its ancestors appeared, or indeed no hint that there were ancestors we know of. It is just faith that assumes they might have existed. ( for sceptics , they must have existed..)

And thats my problem with all of this.

The pure speculation for abiogenesis would certainly never pass the evidentiary test you set for phenomena like so called eucharistic miracles. Provenance. Repeating. Peer reviewed journal.Not least there is no evidence, none, that a minimum cell we know did evolve from a primordial soup, or whether or what the ancestors were, nor when nor how nor what.

"Extraordianry evidence" is a bar that sceptic scientists set against things they dont "like" , an ever higher bar until the evidence fails the test.
When it comes to things they do "like", pure speculation become "understanding" , so no extraordinary evidence or provenance or witnesses needed for the most extraordinary claim of all.


The bottom line.
I have evidence for life from EM. However strong or weak, it is evidence there are tissue sections, slides, dna tests, and reasonable chain of custody. Impeccable with some.

You have none for abiogenesis. Neither what, nor where nor how or even if ancestors to the minimum cell we know even existed.
Final bottom line. My plane to catch.

Apologies, you are right about punctuation etc. Im just in a blinding hurry.