Evidence of miracles.

[Astrid]

Lets take them one at a time.

2/ to confirm it is inexplicable, by breaking a fundamental paradigm of science as it is known
( eg prophecy as a simple example because of time arrow, consciousness outside the brain )

Breaking a fundamental paradigm of science only leads to a conclusion that "we don't know". How do you rule out that our paradigm was wrong? If someone grows a new leg how do you rule out a process yet unknown to us was the cause?

3/ that there is no credible means of faking the evidence.
The only repeat possible is reassessment of evidence, not repeat the event.

Magicians do this all the time. They fake magic and it stumps us. That does not mean we can conclude it was actually magic. There is just a natural explanation that we don't know about. How do you know it is not possible to spend 3 days in the belly of a great fish by natural means?

Lack of an explanation is not good evidence to believe in miracles. Good evidence is a good reason to believe in miracles. I don't see how we would ever get good evidence for miracles but I am open to them.

Paradigm?
How about "laws of".
Violate one or several of those in
your kitchen.

Magician? Show us a flim flam man whose tricks can
stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Paradigm?
How about "laws of".
Violate one or several of those in
your kitchen.

Lets say that I drop a hammer and it does not drop to the floor but hovers in the air. This is violating the laws of gravity right? Why should we conclude that the phenomenon is supernatural over a natural phenomena that we don't know yet?

Magician? Show us a flim flam man whose tricks can
stand up to scrutiny.

What if a magician does do a trick that no one can figure out? Why would you conclude a supernatural explanation over a natural one that we don't know or understand?

 

[Astrid]

Lets say that I drop a hammer and it does not drop to the floor but hovers in the air. This is violating the laws of gravity right? Why should we conclude that the phenomenon is supernatural over a natural phenomena that we don't know yet?

What if a magician does do a trick that no one can figure out? Why would you conclude a supernatural explanation over a natural one that we don't know or understand?

Lets not get out in the weeds
If someone can demonstrably violate the laws of physics, then id say he has gone full supernstural.

 

[Blade]

If we are in a place where there is doubt ..what do we expect to see? Now go out side that "doubt" and just believe you will see miracles. Sad is it not what we see in our own lifes ever day things we take for granted are not miracles. First one that I can remember was when I asked them in the bible study to pray for the BIG wart on my palm. When he was praying that was the AWESOME WONDERFUL COOL part. Well JUST before he finished praying he said "and lord for the ones between his toes". No one knew about those.. no one. About a week later all gone never came back.

One big one was not many years later me and a friend in the back of the Church I see the woman up front crying loudly like screaming jumping like. I asked him "who is she?" He said see all these people here? About 1/2 came with her because she was blind." HAHA PRAISE GOD GLORY TO JESUS! She was blind... NO ANY MORE! There are countless more.

With out faith.. that calls things that be not as though they were I can never please God. Whats written is these signs shall follow them that believe In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So there are those out there that some also call "faith healers" where those signs follow them. There are also fake ones out there. Satan can only mimic. If theres a false then we know there is a true. That preacher that prayed for that woman bind now sees. Years before that was at Glad Tidings Church Spokane Wash. I had just got out of.. well did some bad things at the age of 16 or so. I was working where my mom worked. I over heard her on the phone talk about people falling and asked if I could go with her.

So it was a Friday night.. so many people there. The preacher asked if anyone wanted to experience the power of God to come up there. I thought sure if He's real. So I was standing on the stage and all the people were like 5-6 feet away. The preachers back was to me.. he was praying for someone else. He turns around took one finger just touched my forehead and said "In JESUS name". Next thing I know I wake up.. I am on my back.. no clue how I got there nor how long. I start to get up.. I remember like yesterday and I am 60. Something aka GOD hits my feet shoots up into my chest.

OH.. I can't even begin to tell you or describe the feeling only that haha man I keep going back up to get it again.. never did. Just so wonderful. I remember the youth pastor diving me home saying "not many people have that happen to them like what happen to you". HAHA I didn't see anything but man.. so so so so wonderful. Most fall because they think its what you do. I don't. I remember reading about this man that had a prayer ministry and it was with young people. It was like a weekend and at night about 8+ and they were all praying he said he opened his eyes and look at this girl that opened her eyes looked to her left at the door way and then just feel. He went to her and asked what happened? She said she opened her eyes look at the door way and.. Jesus walked in.. she just fell.

Believe or not matters not I am no one have no reason to make up or lie.. and holy JESUS never ever ever about Him. Sorry went on and on... I don't know why. All I know is all my life I just read His word and its not what I see hear .. I just believe haha there is SO MUCH more I could share. Just talk to Him.. just believe.. just make sure its written in His word. If you don't know .. pray and ask Him. Don't believe me.. you seek you search .. HE LOVES to give and give and give. Oh try to just simply believe

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Lets not get out in the weeds
If someone can demonstrably violate the laws of physics, then id say he has gone full supernstural.

I disagree. Good evidence is needed to support that claim. Like I said, if a hammer levitates in my kitchen how do I know it is due to a supernatural event or a natural one we don't know about yet?

 

[Astrid]

I disagree. Good evidence is needed to support that claim. Like I said, if a hammer levitates in my kitchen how do I know it is due to a supernatural event or a natural one we don't know about yet?

All true. I did tho say " demonstrably "

Anyhow i dont believe in miracles

 

[Mountainmike]

Sorry , been away for few days so no idea what’s gone on. Too many posts to reply to.

You call the two chairs ( and respected medical doctors) of the Lourdes committee as “ catholic’s” as if that were a criticism. So you refused to read them. By logic you should take the same approach to any investigation by those associated with the sceptical associations who from my experience are the least scientific and most biased of all, so the “ magician “ should be discounted on your own criterion.

Several issues.
1/ if you ever actually read the process you would see that they collect evidence, they don’t make the decisions. A panel of many medical professors does that. So the catholics you deride beliefs don’t matter. Their books explain the process.

2/ the process is thorough including, detection and weeding out of fraud and there is no reason to suspect bias.

3/ this is not balance of probability, it’s beyond reasonable doubt.
If any part of evidence is missing , it is left undecided.

4/ you presume cooperation of other medical professionals.

If you read the books you would know that One of the biggest problems in validation is refusal of other medical professionals to give up records because they don’t want to be seen to be part of a validation, so some obstruct even to the point of misleading.
Many are apriori sceptic. So the fact some speak out against it is not decisive - the X-rays and test results are left to do the talking.

Indeed, the behaviour of a priori sceptic academia in the history of some supernatural investigation is shocking. Many lose objectivity in a determination to debunk. Apriori scepticism has in the past wrecked investigations.

You also assume that the church is more likely to want to approve them. It cannot be further from the truth. The church is incredibly sceptic. It doesn’t ask for or want them, and only grudgingly approves them after decades.

Read the books. Then decide. Good order.


Or of course you can do what do what most sceptics do.
Google “ skeptic <insert name of miracle> “ and echo whatever Ill researched cr@p you find.

Subduction recently did that and quoted a link of one of the famous pro shroud authenticity advocate scientists , presenting it as though it were pro shroud fraud….

I missed this:

You call him a sceptic as if that's a criticism. If you were the scientist you claim to be you'd know that scientists are a-priori sceptics - that's why hypotheses must be tested and all theories are provisional

 

[Mountainmike]

2 and 3 here can never be known. You can never rule out explanations that you don't know about or ways of faking things that you don't know about.

Eg
Prophecy is beyond the present scientific model.
Or consciousness beyond the brain.
Inedia. Not eating , drinking without losing weight.
Near Instant medical cures.

Ruling out mechanisms for fraud is much of the investigation.

You should also study a word you use. “ explained”. Consider what you mean.

In reality science is an observation model.
When you say “explained” you actually mean “does what it normally does” , or is observed to do,or is consistent with a model of reality. But It is a model of observations in our senses not of an underlying reality , a fundamental “explanation” is not possible.

The noumena to use kants term is not knowable, only the phenomena. So does it explain anything of “what is “ or just what it normally does? The model also has ground rules. Eg Of time arrow, cause effect etc. Something Inexplicable breaks those rules.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Eg
Prophecy is beyond the present scientific model.

How so?

Or consciousness beyond the brain.

How so? We know that without the brain consciousness has never been observed.

Inedia. Not eating , drinking without losing weight.

How do you know it has a supernatural explanation? How do you know they never ate etc.

Near Instant medical cures.

How have you ruled out processes that we don't know about?

You need to show good evidence for the supernatural not just assert that as the solution.

Ruling out mechanisms for fraud is much of the investigation.

Yes, but you can never rule out the option of fraud. There may be fraud happening that we don't know about. You need direct good evidence that an event is supernatural not just that we don't have any other explanation. I don't know does not equal supernatural.

You should also study a word you use. “ explained”. Consider what you mean.

In reality science is an observation model.
When you say “explained” you actually mean “does what it normally does” , or is observed to do,or is consistent with a model of reality. But It is a model of observations in our senses not of an underlying reality , a fundamental “explanation” is not possible.

An explanation is just a possible solution but is not proof. Any explanation needs to be supported by good evidence including the supernatural to be believed to be true. Just because a phenomena seems to violate a fundamental law of science does not automatically mean t is supernatural. It means we need more science to find out what is going on.

The noumena to use kants term is not knowable, only the phenomena. So does it explain anything of “what is “ or just what it normally does? The model also has ground rules. Eg Of time arrow, cause effect etc. Something Inexplicable breaks those rules.

If something is inexplicable then the correct answer is "I don't know" not its supernatural until an explanation can be supported, supernatural or other.

Saying we have no other explanation does not mean it is supernatural. It means we don't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Another thread had a curious title.

Independently REPEATABLE evidence of miracles. Which is a logical contradiction in the sense that by definition researchers cannot repeat the supernatural, otherwise it wouldn’t be supernatural.

This is so true.

What sciency people need to understand is that:

1. Miracles cannot be duplicated by mankind.
2. Miracles don't always generate evidence.
3. Miracles that do generate evidence can be "cleaned up."

 

[Astrid]

Sorry , been away for few days so no idea what’s gone on. Too many posts to reply to.

You call the two chairs ( and respected medical doctors) of the Lourdes committee as “ catholic’s” as if that were a criticism. So you refused to read them. By logic you should take the same approach to any investigation by those associated with the sceptical associations who from my experience are the least scientific and most biased of all, so the “ magician “ should be discounted on your own criterion.

Several issues.
1/ if you ever actually read the process you would see that they collect evidence, they don’t make the decisions. A panel of many medical professors does that. So the catholics you deride beliefs don’t matter. Their books explain the process.

2/ the process is thorough including, detection and weeding out of fraud and there is no reason to suspect bias.

3/ this is not balance of probability, it’s beyond reasonable doubt.
If any part of evidence is missing , it is left undecided.

4/ you presume cooperation of other medical professionals.

If you read the books you would know that One of the biggest problems in validation is refusal of other medical professionals to give up records because they don’t want to be seen to be part of a validation, so some obstruct even to the point of misleading.
Many are apriori sceptic. So the fact some speak out against it is not decisive - the X-rays and test results are left to do the talking.

Indeed, the behaviour of a priori sceptic academia in the history of some supernatural investigation is shocking. Many lose objectivity in a determination to debunk. Apriori scepticism has in the past wrecked investigations.

You also assume that the church is more likely to want to approve them. It cannot be further from the truth. The church is incredibly sceptic. It doesn’t ask for or want them, and only grudgingly approves them after decades.

Read the books. Then decide. Good order.


Or of course you can do what do what most sceptics do.
Google “ skeptic <insert name of miracle> “ and echo whatever Ill researched cr@p you find.

Subduction recently did that and quoted a link of one of the famous pro shroud authenticity advocate scientists , presenting it as though it were pro shroud fraud….

Im sure Lancet would be thrilled to publish
about a miracle at Lourdes.
Why dont they?
I am seeing excuses like the ones the flying
saucer people use when nobody believes them.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This is so true.

What sciency people need to understand is that:

1. Miracles cannot be duplicated by mankind.
2. Miracles don't always generate evidence.
3. Miracles that do generate evidence can be "cleaned up."

Sciency people do understand this. This is why we don't believe the supernatural exists. It is not our fault that miracles cannot be confirmed even if they do happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sciency people do understand this.

No, they don't.

Or they wouldn't be asking (demanding, actually) for evidence of the Flood, or commenting on how the separation of Pangaea into continents would boil the earth away, or claiming the Exodus didn't occur because they can't find this or that, or anything and everything else they ask (demand, actually) evidence for.

 

[Mountainmike]

Considering the BMJ and Lancet are happy to publish pseudoscience when it suits them (eg 120000 killed by austerity, which was a massive abuse of statistics) they are certainly not trustworthy: indeed the editor of Lancet contradicted himself over COVID. So hardly authority.

There is a demonstrable bias in science towards scientific materialism, that is excluding study of things that dont fit. Despite the warnings of philosophers that science simply does not have the status it is given. It is an observation model, not an underlying reality - that is brought into sharp focus with quantum reality. Read Kant - the difference between "noumena" and phenomena. Or go way back even to Platos shadow world.

The pronouncements of the lourdes Medical commission are the consensus view of about 20 medical professors. That There are indeed inexplicable things that have happened at Lourdes, that meet an almost impossibe set of criteria imposed by the church. Like immediate cure.

That is the problem with apriori sceptics.
There is no objectivity.

I ask you to study the process ( a couple of books out there written by medical doctors charged with running it - that describe it in detail) Yet all we hear in places like this is sceptic tropes.

Your flying saucers were not validated by 20 medical professors. No contest or comparison.

In fact some of the investigations were indeed launched by sceptics.
When two hospital doctors decided to launch an investigation into the inedia of alexandrina da costa of balazaar they were not doing it, to achieve an even handed evaluation of a phenomenon. They wanted to ridicule and disprove it.

So they incarcerated the poor lady in a guarded hospital room, who was paralysed and incapable of motion so certainly could not leave the room. Nothing entered or left the room without being searched. After 20 days in which her weight or health had not changed, she had neither defecated nor urinated, they incarcerated her under even more stringent control.
The only thing she took in all that time was occasional eucharistic wafer. Not enough to feed a mouse. They concluded in a report countersigned by all involved "Beyond to science to explain" the fast was total. She neither urinated nor defecated, yet her body weight was stable and her blood tests were normal.

If you dont trust sceptical doctors intent on disproving, who do you trust?

I hate to break it to you. The supernatural happens. Your model of science is just a codification of what you normally observe, in the limited projection of reality into senses.

In fact the army of sceptics including police, sceptic journalists, science professors and othyers intent on ridicule were the best witnesses at fatima some years before! They were the ones who produced some of the published eye witness testimony.

Im sure Lancet would be thrilled to publish
about a miracle at Lourdes.
Why dont they?
I am seeing excuses like the ones the flying
saucer people use when nobody believes them.

 

[Mountainmike]

How so?

Prophecy does not fit the time arrow, of a deterministic causal universe when extrapolation is chaotic like weather.
Take an example.
Whatever happened at Fatima was utterly extraordinary. It is impossible to explain in present meteorology.
But that doesnt prove by itself it was supernatural, although the fact it was unique has not occurred is unexplained and a clear violation of normal scientific laws.

The fact it was prophesied to take place at a specific time and place, makes it inexplicable. Since weather is chaotic, no such prediction is possible.

The number and nature of witnesses of it, and the fact some were many miles away and had no idea it was going to happen, excludes any form of mass hysteria, as do the physical symptoms. eg instant land drying after torrential rain. The so called column of smoke reported by many at all the apparations, which was just a cylindrical haze at the site of the apparatition..
Even the sceptic medics and professors said it happened and described it!
As someone who lives not far away i can say drying never happens quickly at that time of year. Puddles linger for weeks in winter. Rains are biblical in proportion.

So there it is.
The inexplicable in a Theistic context.

You ask science for too much. It actually explains nothing. It observes patterns, codifies them, and then expects them to repeat. Science can have no idea of the underlying reality of what is or why, only what is normally observed.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, they don't.

Or they wouldn't be asking (demanding, actually) for evidence of the Flood, or commenting on how the separation of Pangaea into continents would boil the earth away, or claiming the Exodus didn't occur because they can't find this or that, or anything and everything else they ask (demand, actually) evidence for.

Yes, we demand evidence to believe something. That is not controversial. Just because it is a miracle does not mean evidence is suddenly not required for belief. We understand that you don't have evidence for miracles. Until you do we cannot believe that they happen.

 

[Mountainmike]

We understand that you don't have evidence for miracles

Suggest you start losing your sceptic tropes, and start reading the evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Prophecy does not fit the time arrow, of a deterministic causal universe when extrapolation is chaotic like weather.
Take an example.
Whatever happened at Fatima was utterly extraordinary. It is impossible to explain in present meteorology.
But that doesnt prove by itself it was supernatural, although the fact it was unique has not occurred is unexplained.

The fact it was prophesied to take place at a specific time and place, makes it inexplicable. Since weather is chaotic, no such prediction is possible.

The number and nature of witnesses of it, and the fact some were many miles away and had no idea it was going to happen, excludes any form of mass hysteria, as do the physical symptoms. eg instant land drying after torrential rain. The so called column of smoke reported by many at all the apparations, which was just a cylindrical haze at the site of the apparatition..
As someone who lives not far away i can say drying never happens quickly at that time of year. Puddles linger for weeks in winter. Rains are biblical in proportion.

So there it is.
The inexplicable in a Theistic context.

I agree if these events happened as reported it is unexplained. Claiming it is a supernatural event requires evidence before belief.

You ask science for too much. It actually explains nothing. It observes patterns, codifies them, and then expects them to repeat. Science can have no idea of the underlying reality of what is or why, only what is normally observed.

Science explains a lot but not everything. What evidence do you have for an underlying reality? What does that mean?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Suggest you start losing your sceptic tropes, and start reading the evidence.

What evidence? All you have done is made claims. That is not evidence. It is not the fault of me or of science that supernatural events cannot have evidence required for belief.

 

[Mountainmike]

I agree if these events happened as reported it is unexplained. Claiming it is a supernatural event requires evidence before belief.

Science explains a lot but not everything. What evidence do you have for an underlying reality? What does that mean?

Science exlains nothing. It creates a growing model which is in essence a pattern of what things normally do. Philosophers have stated that the underlying reality is unknowable. So "fits the normal pattern" is hardly an "explanation"

The time arrow is the time arrow needed for causality. Meteorogy is chaotic, so not predictable far. It cannot be predicted that an event will occur at exact time and place six months ahead. That is a violation of the deterministic causal model science assumes.

As for "what does that mean" - its time you went deeper into science philosophy.
Its a man made model of things that repeat and a process for developing it that is all. It is also very valuable, but it is limited in what it can say about "what is" rather than what it normally does.

But by way of example It has oranges and lemons. If an apple is not put in the model by man, the model cannot conclude apple. It will conclude "unexplained". Then man puts "apple" in the model. Has that "explained" an apple? . Nope. It has simply added one more piece of experience to the model.

God is not in the model so the model will never conclude "god." not because God does not exist, but because man has yet to put him in the science model. The absence of God from the science model, does not disprove existence.

Development of the model, also presumes some base rules. Like without deterministic, objective and causal, the scientific process cannot work.
So evidence of something like prophesy, attacks the core tenets of science itself. Those are "inexplicable".

All we can then do is point where the inexlicable occurs in a theistic context.

THe univervse is what it is. "laws" are a man made invention put to what it normally does.

Thats the problem with school science. It no longer teaches what it means or the limits of it. What it can say and what it cannot.

Science is a tool like a hammer. It is strange people now put faith in a man made hammer as an intellectual crutch for existence.
It is just a tool.