Evidence of miracles.

[Hans Blaster]

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.

What's your point, man?

First of all miracles and prophecy are not the same thing, so none of this is relevant, now is it.

Meteorology is not sorcery or prophesy, either. (Nor is it miraculous.)

This post was a lemon.

 

[Astrid]

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.

The excuse about Lancet was so predictable.

"You hate`to break it to me" : D

Trot out Plato anf " philosophy" and denounce the
most prestigious medical institutions as it suits you.
They are all corrupt and in a conspiracy.

If miracles cures were real thered be no call
for all that.

But whatevs, you choose to believe.

" break it to me " and the rest of the world when you
have something better than " twenty doctors".

.

 

[Astrid]

What's your point, man?

First of all miracles and prophecy are not the same thing, so none of this is relevant, now is it.

Meteorology is not sorcery or prophesy, either. (Nor is it miraculous.)

This post was a lemon.

Now now dont go trashing the poor lemons.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Now now dont go trashing the poor lemons.

Contrary to the popular (?) song, lemons are not impossible to eat. (I rather like eating them, at least a few slices at a time.)

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Then let me repeat myself:

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.

Your post supports #2 and #3 above.

What you need to understand, is that you CAN BELIEVE, without having to have evidence all the time; ESPECIALLY when dealing with evidence for miracles.

Christians believe in the Resurrection without physical evidence of it.

But then some Christians will turn around and expect to have evidence that the Flood was worldwide, or they will believe it was just a local one.

And I'll never understand how a person can believe the Flood was a miracle, but then have trouble believing it was worldwide.

God took a rib from Adam, then closed up the wound.

I would venture to say that there was no scar left behind.

And for Eve to wax sciency and demand evidence of this "operation" would be a mistake on her part.

Ditto for the Flood.

God cleaned up His mess so effectually, it's like it never happened.

 

[Mountainmike]

I’ve suggested you look at the process that validates Lourdes miracles.

See just how many medical professors are involved.

Read the books by those who run it.
That’s how I make informed opinion.

But whatevs, you choose to believe.


.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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….

You're probably responding to the wrong post - little, if any, of your post appears relevant to my comment about scientists being a-priori skeptics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Yup - this 'defence' of miracles sounds like that made by paranormal enthusiasts when well-controlled experiments failed to replicate their claims, "It doesn't work if people are observing it".

If miracles are anecdotal claims that can't be supported, then the dragon in my garage is a miracle.

 

[AV1611VET]

If miracles are anecdotal claims that can't be supported, then the dragon in my garage is a miracle.

No, the dragon in your garage is not a miracle; nor is it an example of one.

Even Carl Sagan didn't call it a miracle.

He said his was a made-up story, as an example of skeptical thinking.

 

[Mountainmike]

As a guy who passed a 4 sigma IQ test, I despair of the lack of critical thinking on this forum and sceptics generally.

I’ve explained the limits of scientific process.
Miracle ascribes cause, but if the cause is not in the model, it can only declare unexplained. The model cannot therefore state miracle, a limitation of the model , not the universe,.

Violating a fundamental constraint of the model renders inexplicable.
Prophesy fulfilled ( of an event way past the possibility of extrapolation) is inexplicable.

The best that can be said to ascribe cause is “ in theistic context”

So a prophecy fulfilled at Fatima, where the unexplainable happened at a time and and place prophesied so is inexplicable by science.

since the ones who communicated the prophesy stated “ so all would see and believe” - theistic content is indisputable.

fraud is not a viable hypothesis.

So there it is. Inexplicable in theistic context. Evidence of a miracle.

What's your point, man?

First of all miracles and prophecy are not the same thing, so none of this is relevant, now is it.

Meteorology is not sorcery or prophesy, either. (Nor is it miraculous.)

This post was a lemon.

 

[Mountainmike]

Only when you dictate the form of the paranormal.

Consciousness is experiential. It is how you account and rationalise experience.

There are many experiences occurring between twins, or indeed NDE
That are hard to explain, hard to discount.

Take twins sensing /a catastrophe in each other’s lives , later confirmed.

Take the emergency ward experience that got Greyson into analysing NDE.

How did a patient with a non functioning cortex describe a mark on his tie, or his conversation with another in a different part of the building?

These don’t fit the “ on demand pattern” needed for lab repeats.
The fact some “ on demand tests” don’t show repeatable results or that evidence for others is experiential / anecdotal does not invalidate the evidence of out of body consciousness.

If the experiences are inexplicable for guess by random chance and the OBE occurs with a non functioning cortex, it clearly challenges consciousness as a chemical brain function.

Yup - this 'defence' of miracles sounds like that made by paranormal enthusiasts when well-controlled experiments failed to replicate their claims, "It doesn't work if people are observing it".

If miracles are anecdotal claims that can't be supported, then the dragon in my garage is a miracle.

 

[Ophiolite]

As I a guy who passed a 4 sigma IQ test, I despair of the lack of critical thinking on this forum and sceptics generally.

Ironic, then, that your high IQ is not reflected in your ability to write grammatical - and hence cogent - sentences. That is not an ad hominem, it is an observation calling into question your implied competence in regard to critical thinking. Critical thinking should be reflected in clarity of exposition. When that is absent, critical thinking may be doubted.

fraud is not a viable hypothesis.

Why not?

 

[Mountainmike]

Ironic, then, that your high IQ is not reflected in your ability to write grammatical - and hence cogent - sentences. That is not an ad hominem, it is an observation calling into question your implied competence in regard to critical thinking. Critical thinking should be reflected in clarity of exposition. When that is absent, critical thinking may be doubted.

Why not?

It means like many similar people , indeed many scientists I am partly dyslexic. My thoughts run way ahead of my pen.

My comments on ,unexplained v inexplicable are spot on. As is The impossibility of “ proving “ a miracle , only showing inexplicable in theistic context.

Indeed the inability of science to comment on objective reality ( Kants noumena ) , because it is just a model in observation space ( phenomena) , again spot on. The inability of quantum physics to address reality in a coherent way, is proof of the problem.

Education is doing no favours by giving science a philosophical status it does not deserve and it cannot earn. Sadly too few people get deep enough into science to see the philosophical problem it has.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

What do you mean by "underlying reality"?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Then let me repeat myself:

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.

Your post supports #2 and #3 above.

What you need to understand, is that you CAN BELIEVE, without having to have evidence all the time; ESPECIALLY when dealing with evidence for miracles.

Christians believe in the Resurrection without physical evidence of it.

But then some Christians will turn around and expect to have evidence that the Flood was worldwide, or they will believe it was just a local one.

And I'll never understand how a person can believe the Flood was a miracle, but then have trouble believing it was worldwide.

God took a rib from Adam, then closed up the wound.

I would venture to say that there was no scar left behind.

And for Eve to wax sciency and demand evidence of this "operation" would be a mistake on her part.

Ditto for the Flood.

God cleaned up His mess so effectually, it's like it never happened.

I understand you can believe for bad reasons but no one should believe anything without sufficient evidence. Even miracles. In the end all you have is a claim that god made Eve from a rib of Adam. It is a mistake to believe something without sufficient evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

As a guy who passed a 4 sigma IQ test, I despair of the lack of critical thinking on this forum and sceptics generally.

IQ has nothing to do with what a person believes. There are many smart people that believe in miracles and smart people that do not. Should I just believe you because you claim you passed an IQ test?

I’ve explained the limits of scientific process.
Miracle ascribes cause, but if the cause is not in the model, it can only declare unexplained. The model cannot therefore state miracle, a limitation of the model , not the universe,.

True , but it cannot confirm a miracle either.

Violating a fundamental constraint of the model renders inexplicable.
Prophesy fulfilled ( of an event way past the possibility of extrapolation) is inexplicable.

The best that can be said to ascribe cause is “ in theistic context”

Why is this the best? This is just a claim. Why isn't modifying the model an equally acceptable solution?

So a prophecy fulfilled at Fatima, where the unexplainable happened at a time and and place prophesied so is inexplicable by science.

since the ones who communicated the prophesy stated “ so all would see and believe” - theistic content is indisputable.

What does the theistic context have to do with it? The theistic context is just a claim.

fraud is not a viable hypothesis.

How can you rule fraud out? It could have been done in a way you don't know about.

So there it is. Inexplicable in theistic context. Evidence of a miracle.

See above why I think your logic is flawed. You basically have a claim of a miracle and the evidence you give is just the claim.

 

[Astrid]

I’ve suggested you look at the process that validates Lourdes miracles.

See just how many medical professors are involved.

Read the books by those who run it.
That’s how I make informed opinion.

" read the books", vet all the doctors, decide that cause and effect are reversible
( see "prophecy")

Nah. No more than i will check out every chupacabra, flying saucer,
New age anything, or notice that i won the dutch lottery.

A person needs to apply a bit of common sense in life.
That includes things like that if i checked Mayo
Clinic, FDA, to see if there are any verified
reports of a copper bracelet curing arthritis, or
homeopathy doing anything - and they all say no-
I wont read homeopathy books.
Waste of time.
I will hear about it soon enough if someone catches
Chupacabra, or proves homeopathy really works.
Or gets cured at Lourdes.
The Lourdes thing is a waste of time.
Respond as it suits you, but I wont answer.

 

[Mountainmike]

I’ve explained the philosophical limits of what it is possible for science to state. Its a limitation of science not the universe. Science is a blunt tool based on things that repeat not exceptions. Science has little to say until and if it repeats.

You Suggest a change to the model that:
1/ keeps deterministic, causal , objective , forward time arrow
2/ That also allows prediction of precise weather six months ahead,exact time / date?
3/ A weather pattern unknown to science , not repeated since
Occurring at the time prophesied was stated so “ all will believe”

Or state how it was fraudulent?

IQ has nothing to do with what a person believes. There are many smart people that believe in miracles and smart people that do not. Should I just believe you because you claim you passed an IQ test?

True , but it cannot confirm a miracle either.

Why is this the best? This is just a claim. Why isn't modifying the model an equally acceptable solution?

What does the theistic context have to do with it? The theistic context is just a claim.

How can you rule fraud out? It could have been done in a way you don't know about.

See above why I think your logic is flawed. You basically have a claim of a miracle and the evidence you give is just the claim.

 

[Ophiolite]

It means like many similar people , indeed many scientists I am partly dyslexic. My thoughts run way ahead of my pen

Understood. That is why it is good sense to reflect upon what you write, pause, edit and reflect again. It is not only good sense, it is courteous.

My comments on ,unexplained v inexplicable are spot on. As is The impossibility of “ proving “ a miracle , only showing inexplicable in theistic context.

I found your comments to disjointed to extract a structured argument from them. Your thoughts may be spot on, but until you present them with clarity I can neither agree, nor disagree.

Indeed the inability of science to comment on objective reality ( Kants noumena ) , because it is just a model in observation space ( phenomena) , again spot on

I can't abide Kant's cant. But seriously, science provides a model of reality. How do you propose getting closer to an understanding of reality than that? Calling it "just a model" suggests your blind spot is unusually large.

The inability of quantum physics to address reality in a coherent way, is proof of the problem.

Rather, I see your viewpoint as evidence you are unable to accept the weirdness of "reality" and blame science for your limitations.

Education is doing no favours by giving science a philosophical status it does not deserve and it cannot earn.

And what status do you think Education is giving science?

Sadly too few people get deep enough into science to see the philosophical problem it has.

Or, some people misunderstand science and misinterpret philosophy and thereby reach self indulgent conclusions.

 

[Mountainmike]

Since you won’t study, even who validated the miracle in the medical community your opinion on it is completely specious.

The rest of your post a typical sceptic logical straw man. Likening it to dislike things as a fallacious attempt to dismiss it, I think you too should study critical thinking.

You might be interested to know that this event is noted in the Canadian medical journal, complete with before and after X-rays.
But - like the lancet - it is not a proper academic journal. Nor is the paper structured as an academic paper would be.

if you had studied the interaction of academic journals with theistic phenomena you would know that they are not objective. Eg the journal that published the farcically bad false radio carbon date of the shroud of Turin Refused to publish a paper from those who first refuted the date, or indeed a paper by an archeologist tearing their process to shreds, because the peers were those whose credibility would be permanently damaged.

If you refuse to study evidence your opinions are just beliefs and will remain so.

" read the books", vet all the doctors, decide that cause and effect are reversible
( see "prophecy")

Nah. No more than i will check out every chupacabra, flying saucer,
New age anything, or notice that i won the dutch lottery.

A person needs to apply a bit of common sense in life.
That includes things like that if i checked Mayo
Clinic, FDA, to see if there are any verified
reports of a copper bracelet curing arthritis, or
homeopathy doing anything - and they all say no-
I wont read homeopathy books.
Waste of time.
I will hear about it soon enough if someone catvhrs
Chupacabra, or proves homeopathy really works.

The Lourdes thing is a waste of time.
Respond as it suits you, but I wont answer.