Evidence of miracles.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can I just say, after going through all 18 pages of this thread, the arguments I see about miracles happening is: "Miracles happen! Look it up!"

That is literally all it is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Im arguing semantics of words. Abiogenesis is a generic term for life from no life. It does not just refer to the supposed life from soup. Flesh from bread by whatever process is just as valid to use the term abiogenesis. I distinguish it by saying theistic.

But bread *is* life (or at least, used to be life). I don't know of anyone who uses the term abiogenesis for meat from bread, maggots from meat, etc. transitions. It is used to mean living cells (or proto-cells) from pre-biotic chemistry, except by those trying to conflate things.

When Dawkins speaks about abiogenesis, he is *not* talking about eucharistic miracles. He is talking about the origin of life. And that is true whether you think abiogenesis is possible or not.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

A precis of each of the eucharistic miracles is on "therealpresence.org".

I will look at this site.

To get more you will need to buy books.
eg the actual test reports for tixtla are in "cronica do milagre eucharistico" castarnon. Or the english reports on Lanciano.

Buying tesoriero and willessees books ( particularly "unseen" and as I just pointed at

"my human heart", identifies the scientists involved in the miracles

Avalailable at reasontobelieve.com.au

Mike willessees book " a sceptics search for meaning" - a world leading investigative journalist who was converted by his attempt to debunk all the above, discoverhing they were real science.

I am not buying any books. That is a red flag to me that I need to pay to see evidence of a miracle.

There are plenty of videos out there. Google "eucharistic miracle" buenos airies, sokolka, legnica etc. or "cochambamba statue bleeding"

Also tesorieros videos are usefuls summaries
These were all forensic labs that decided the science. Most did so, not knowing what the samples were until after testing, becuase many refused to get involved if they knew before hand.

There are more open minded scientists like robert lawrence (pathologist) son of the nobel prize winner, who investigated such as the cochabamba statue. Various heart specialists identified heart myocardium in the eucharistic miracles.

Many univeristies refused to get involved, if they knew the source, and other pathologists were harrassed and even silenced for just documenting what they saw. Soubaniec / Sokolka

As I said - For a complete precis get hold of the newly released "my human heart" from reasontobelieve.com.au

I will spend som etime over the next couple of weeks looking at teh evidence I can find.

To give an idea , in the case of the cochabamba statue it was filmed live over hours, on several occasions so certainly was not tampered whilst bleeding or crying . It was CT scanned, so no internal pathways even hairs breadth. The forensic reports by such as Lawrence who took his own samples (and re CT scanned it!) not only identified epithelial cells (also smashed up and traumatised) with white cells and scab tissue (that can ONLY form in vivo not in vitro) - and also vegetative matter identified as thorn.
Not so surprising for a blood mark from a crown of thorns!

Take any of these and ask yourself the question. How were they faked? Scab tissue cannot form just by dripping blood in a hoax. White cells lyse after hours post mortem. The flesh must be ALIVE.

I don't have to know how they can be faked. You need to provide good evidence that they are miracles. That is good epistemology.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Flesh from bread by whatever process is just as valid to use the term abiogenesis. I distinguish it by saying theistic.

It could be as sophisticated as slight-of-hand. I don't think it needs any fancy names.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

A precis of each of the eucharistic miracles is on "therealpresence.org".

A summary of events is not evidence. It is the claim.

To get more you will need to buy books.
eg the actual test reports for tixtla are in "cronica do milagre eucharistico" castarnon. Or the english reports on Lanciano.

Buying tesoriero and willessees books ( particularly "unseen" and as I just pointed at

"my human heart", identifies the scientists involved in the miracles

Avalailable at reasontobelieve.com.au

Do any of these books have the actual evidence or do they just states what happened and what was found?

Mike willessees book " a sceptics search for meaning" - a world leading investigative journalist who was converted by his attempt to debunk all the above, discovering they were real science.

I watched a couple of videos about his investigations into the Eucharist. The miracle of Santa Maria in Argentina in 1996. Here is one video by Mike Willesee.

In this video he retells the story of the Eucharist that was discarded, left in a bowl of water to dissolve and it was found to have transformed into blood. Presumably Christs blood.

Facts as stated in the video:
1. The Eucharist was not used because it was dirty.
2. It was locked in a bowl of water then put in the tabernacle by a priest.
3. An assistant to the priest unlocked the tabernacle after a week and found the Eucharist to be red.
4. The assistant brought it back to the priest that put it in the tabernacle.
5. The sample was brought to a lab in California.
6. The scientists (Dr. Robert Lawrence) found skin cells and verified it came from a living organism.
7. Another scientist (Dr, Linoli?) said it could be heart cells.
8. Then it is transferred to New York for pathologist and heart expert to look at it. (Dr. Frederick Zoogabee?) He said this could be heart tissue from the left ventricle of a human heart.
9. Then it goes back to Argentina and talk about the science with the priest and they conclude that it is from Jesus to confirm their faith.

That is it as told in this video. Here are my reasons that this is not convincing:
1. In fact 2, the priest alone put the Eucharist in the tabernacle in a bowl of water. All we have is his word for it.
2. Between fact 2 and 3 it was left alone in a locked tabernacle with at least two people that had a key and probably more. It was not guarded or watched.
3. In fact 5 above this sample was transferred to California and again all we have is Mike's say so. There is nothing that verifies what was found was transferred to the California lab.
4. Facts 6, 7 and 8 all concluded that it "could" be human tissue and "could be" from a human heart. Each scientist used that same word.

For me to believe in this miracle I would need better evidence than this. There are so many holes in the chain of custody of the sample that anything could have been inserted or replaced as the sample. He also described two other instances of this happening with the same type of evidence. Nothing better than the case I described.

One really telling thing from this vides is at about 29:25 he states that one of the samples was identified as human white blood cells. Then he says:

"But here is the mystifying twist, despite the large amount of DNA information available further testing was unable to identify who the cells came from. One reason given is that these samples had become degraded. Another is that somehow this result was beyond the knowledge of science."

We don't have everyone DNA and also to give a reasonable reason of the sample was degraded but then quickly move to we cannot find who the DNA belongs to so it may be beyond science is laughable.

Then he goes on the give evidence in the last minute of the video that the Eucharist at the Miracle of Mexico was female in origin and was a fraud. But the believers did not care what science said. They still believed it was a miracle and was the blood of Jesus even after confronted with good evidence that it was not.

There are plenty of videos out there. Google "eucharistic miracle" buenos airies, sokolka, legnica etc. or "cochambamba statue bleeding"

As far as bleeding or crying statues, it has been reproduced by making a plaster (or a porous substance) cast of a Jesus figure with a cavity in side it. The outside is glazed with a hard substance and then tiny scratches are put in. When you put blood/water in the cavity it will eventually go through the porous material through capillary action. I am sure there are other ways to do it but if humans can reproduce a "miracle" then how can I conclude that any particular instance is a miracle. I have seen magicians do much more unbelievable things that are not supernatural.

Also tesorieros videos are usefuls summaries
These were all forensic labs that decided the science. Most did so, not knowing what the samples were until after testing, becuase many refused to get involved if they knew before hand.

There are more open minded scientists like robert lawrence (pathologist) son of the nobel prize winner, who investigated such as the cochabamba statue. Various heart specialists identified heart myocardium in the eucharistic miracles.

Many univeristies refused to get involved, if they knew the source, and other pathologists were harrassed and even silenced for just documenting what they saw. Soubaniec / Sokolka

As I said - For a complete precis get hold of the newly released "my human heart" from reasontobelieve.com.au

I don't want summaries (claims) I want evidence.

To give an idea , in the case of the cochabamba statue it was filmed live over hours, on several occasions so certainly was not tampered whilst bleeding or crying . It was CT scanned, so no internal pathways even hairs breadth. The forensic reports by such as Lawrence who took his own samples (and re CT scanned it!) not only identified epithelial cells (also smashed up and traumatised) with white cells and scab tissue (that can ONLY form in vivo not in vitro) - and also vegetative matter identified as thorn.
Not so surprising for a blood mark from a crown of thorns!

How can you say it was "certainly not tampered with"? That is a claim by you that you need to substantiate.

If you have direct evidence please give it. Summaries and books and videos are not the evidence they are the claims. Did any of these scientists write any papers on their conclusions? Stating how they obtained the sample, how they tested it and what the results were?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A summary of events is not evidence. It is the claim.

Do any of these books have the actual evidence or do they just states what happened and what was found?

I watched a couple of videos about his investigations into the Eucharist. The miracle of Santa Maria in Argentina in 1996. Here is one video by Mike Willesee.

In this video he retells the story of the Eucharist that was discarded, left in a bowl of water to dissolve and it was found to have transformed into blood. Presumably Christs blood.

Facts as stated in the video:
1. The Eucharist was not used because it was dirty.
2. It was locked in a bowl of water then put in the tabernacle by a priest.
3. An assistant to the priest unlocked the tabernacle after a week and found the Eucharist to be red.
4. The assistant brought it back to the priest that put it in the tabernacle.
5. The sample was brought to a lab in California.
6. The scientists (Dr. Robert Lawrence) found skin cells and verified it came from a living organism.
7. Another scientist (Dr, Linoli?) said it could be heart cells.
8. Then it is transferred to New York for pathologist and heart expert to look at it. (Dr. Frederick Zoogabee?) He said this could be heart tissue from the left ventricle of a human heart.
9. Then it goes back to Argentina and talk about the science with the priest and they conclude that it is from Jesus to confirm their faith.

That is it as told in this video. Here are my reasons that this is not convincing:
1. In fact 2, the priest alone put the Eucharist in the tabernacle in a bowl of water. All we have is his word for it.
2. Between fact 2 and 3 it was left alone in a locked tabernacle with at least two people that had a key and probably more. It was not guarded or watched.
3. In fact 5 above this sample was transferred to California and again all we have is Mike's say so. There is nothing that verifies what was found was transferred to the California lab.
4. Facts 6, 7 and 8 all concluded that it "could" be human tissue and "could be" from a human heart. Each scientist used that same word.

For me to believe in this miracle I would need better evidence than this. There are so many holes in the chain of custody of the sample that anything could have been inserted or replaced as the sample. He also described two other instances of this happening with the same type of evidence. Nothing better than the case I described.

One really telling thing from this vides is at about 29:25 he states that one of the samples was identified as human white blood cells. Then he says:

"But here is the mystifying twist, despite the large amount of DNA information available further testing was unable to identify who the cells came from. One reason given is that these samples had become degraded. Another is that somehow this result was beyond the knowledge of science."

We don't have everyone DNA and also to give a reasonable reason of the sample was degraded but then quickly move to we cannot find who the DNA belongs to so it may be beyond science is laughable.

Then he goes on the give evidence in the last minute of the video that the Eucharist at the Miracle of Mexico was female in origin and was a fraud. But the believers did not care what science said. They still believed it was a miracle and was the blood of Jesus even after confronted with good evidence that it was not.

As far as bleeding or crying statues, it has been reproduced by making a plaster (or a porous substance) cast of a Jesus figure with a cavity in side it. The outside is glazed with a hard substance and then tiny scratches are put in. When you put blood/water in the cavity it will eventually go through the porous material through capillary action. I am sure there are other ways to do it but if humans can reproduce a "miracle" then how can I conclude that any particular instance is a miracle. I have seen magicians do much more unbelievable things that are not supernatural.

I don't want summaries (claims) I want evidence.

How can you say it was "certainly not tampered with"? That is a claim by you that you need to substantiate.

If you have direct evidence please give it. Summaries and books and videos are not the evidence they are the claims. Did any of these scientists write any papers on their conclusions? Stating how they obtained the sample, how they tested it and what the results were?

Good luck! - been there, done that. I predict more insistent repeats of the claim and a Gish-gallop of other, unrelated, supernatural claims.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Good luck! - been there, done that. I predict more insistent repeats of the claim and a Gish-gallop of other, unrelated, supernatural claims.

maybe, we will see.

 

[Mountainmike]

I suggest you read the books.

Books such as Tixtla contain 50 pages of test reports, authored by forensic labs.

Critical thinking.
1/ accept the difference between a lego brick on the moon and a flying lego brick
The first is An ordinary thing in an extraordinary place, the second an extraordinary thing. The chain of custody is vital in the first case, without which it is ordinary. Proof of origin of an extraordinary thing is not needed to make it extraordinary.

In all these cases a common set of factors - some or all of, flesh passes tests for human, but doesnt yield nuclear DNA, does yield mitochondrial DNA, has leucocytes in vitro which all pathologists tell you cannot happen. Just as dead bodies dont make scabs in the statue case. Bread intermingled with flesh at the edge. Cells distorted by trauma. Not just the striation of heart tissue, also oval leucocytes Blood pushing out of bread not in, according to micrographs. The change was progressive not instant.

Nobody knows how to fake any of that, certainly not a priest.

Until you have a credible explanation for how any sample was faked, arguing it was substitution fraud hidden by chain of custody is critical is bad critical thinking as a method to debunk it.

2/ accept there were five of these plus the statue on several different continents, different pathologists from different countries in each case
(seven are listed by tesoriero in the case of buenos airies alone, the heart specialists said it was heart, but others said it might be epithelium, they were not used to the changes that heart tissue striation goes through when it is traumatized, zugibe was a specialist )
All came to the same conclusion. All decided human flesh.

3. In the case of buenos airies Tesoriero - a solicitor performed the chain of custody hand delivered to labs. But lawrence - a stated non believer - the pathologist did his own custody on the statue of cochambamba.
Soubaniec on sokolka etc. There was nobody common between some of them orchestrating a fraud.

Study it all. Then decide. Good order.
Until somebody actually studies them I am done justifiying it all.

Willessees journey is fascinating. He was the worst sceptic of all. He earned a living from debunking frauds.
He ended convinced.
Zugibe was a sceptic, until the work converted him.

Lawrence wrote a review for teseroriero, saying it was enough to seriously question idarwins view of life.

A summary of events is not evidence. It is the claim.

Do any of these books have the actual evidence or do they just states what happened and what was found?

I watched a couple of videos about his investigations into the Eucharist. The miracle of Santa Maria in Argentina in 1996. Here is one video by Mike Willesee.

In this video he retells the story of the Eucharist that was discarded, left in a bowl of water to dissolve and it was found to have transformed into blood. Presumably Christs blood.

Facts as stated in the video:
1. The Eucharist was not used because it was dirty.
2. It was locked in a bowl of water then put in the tabernacle by a priest.
3. An assistant to the priest unlocked the tabernacle after a week and found the Eucharist to be red.
4. The assistant brought it back to the priest that put it in the tabernacle.
5. The sample was brought to a lab in California.
6. The scientists (Dr. Robert Lawrence) found skin cells and verified it came from a living organism.
7. Another scientist (Dr, Linoli?) said it could be heart cells.
8. Then it is transferred to New York for pathologist and heart expert to look at it. (Dr. Frederick Zoogabee?) He said this could be heart tissue from the left ventricle of a human heart.
9. Then it goes back to Argentina and talk about the science with the priest and they conclude that it is from Jesus to confirm their faith.

That is it as told in this video. Here are my reasons that this is not convincing:
1. In fact 2, the priest alone put the Eucharist in the tabernacle in a bowl of water. All we have is his word for it.
2. Between fact 2 and 3 it was left alone in a locked tabernacle with at least two people that had a key and probably more. It was not guarded or watched.
3. In fact 5 above this sample was transferred to California and again all we have is Mike's say so. There is nothing that verifies what was found was transferred to the California lab.
4. Facts 6, 7 and 8 all concluded that it "could" be human tissue and "could be" from a human heart. Each scientist used that same word.

For me to believe in this miracle I would need better evidence than this. There are so many holes in the chain of custody of the sample that anything could have been inserted or replaced as the sample. He also described two other instances of this happening with the same type of evidence. Nothing better than the case I described.

One really telling thing from this vides is at about 29:25 he states that one of the samples was identified as human white blood cells. Then he says:

"But here is the mystifying twist, despite the large amount of DNA information available further testing was unable to identify who the cells came from. One reason given is that these samples had become degraded. Another is that somehow this result was beyond the knowledge of science."

We don't have everyone DNA and also to give a reasonable reason of the sample was degraded but then quickly move to we cannot find who the DNA belongs to so it may be beyond science is laughable.

Then he goes on the give evidence in the last minute of the video that the Eucharist at the Miracle of Mexico was female in origin and was a fraud. But the believers did not care what science said. They still believed it was a miracle and was the blood of Jesus even after confronted with good evidence that it was not.

As far as bleeding or crying statues, it has been reproduced by making a plaster (or a porous substance) cast of a Jesus figure with a cavity in side it. The outside is glazed with a hard substance and then tiny scratches are put in. When you put blood/water in the cavity it will eventually go through the porous material through capillary action. I am sure there are other ways to do it but if humans can reproduce a "miracle" then how can I conclude that any particular instance is a miracle. I have seen magicians do much more unbelievable things that are not supernatural.

I don't want summaries (claims) I want evidence.

How can you say it was "certainly not tampered with"? That is a claim by you that you need to substantiate.

If you have direct evidence please give it. Summaries and books and videos are not the evidence they are the claims. Did any of these scientists write any papers on their conclusions? Stating how they obtained the sample, how they tested it and what the results were?

 

[Mountainmike]

I am just using the definitions of words.

It doesnt matter what you call it.
It is extraordinary.
Bread became living heart.

And it is a fair comparison.
Dawkins admits he has not a shred of evidence for how his idea of life starting happened.
This is evidenc of life starting in a totally different way. Several times.

But bread *is* life (or at least, used to be life). I don't know of anyone who uses the term abiogenesis for meat from bread, maggots from meat, etc. transitions. It is used to mean living cells (or proto-cells) from pre-biotic chemistry, except by those trying to conflate things.

When Dawkins speaks about abiogenesis, he is *not* talking about eucharistic miracles. He is talking about the origin of life. And that is true whether you think abiogenesis is possible or not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It doesnt matter what you call it.
It is extraordinary.
Bread became living heart.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^ and

THAT >>>>

And it is a fair comparison.
Dawkins admits he has not a shred of evidence for how his idea of life starting happened.
This is evidenc of life starting in a totally different way. Several times.

are not the same thing.

Dawkins was clearly talking about the second (the origin of life) and not the first (your favorite "miracle").

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I suggest you read the books.

Books such as Tixtla contain 50 pages of test reports, authored by forensic labs.

If I can get it free at a library I will.

Critical thinking.
1/ accept the difference between a lego brick on the moon and a flying lego brick
The first is An ordinary thing in an extraordinary place, the second an extraordinary thing. The chain of custody is vital in the first case, without which it is ordinary. Proof of origin of an extraordinary thing is not needed to make it extraordinary.

In all these cases a common set of factors - some or all of, flesh passes tests for human, but doesnt yield nuclear DNA, does yield mitochondrial DNA, has leucocytes in vitro which all pathologists tell you cannot happen. Just as dead bodies dont make scabs in the statue case. Bread intermingled with flesh at the edge. Cells distorted by trauma. Not just the striation of heart tissue, also oval leucocytes Blood pushing out of bread not in, according to micrographs. The change was progressive not instant.

Nobody knows how to fake any of that, certainly not a priest.

Until you have a credible explanation for how any sample was faked, arguing it was substitution fraud hidden by chain of custody is critical is bad critical thinking as a method to debunk it.

This is bad epistemology. I never said I debunked anything. I said the evidence is not convincing for belief.

Your "critical thinking" skills led you to the epistemology that unless you have another answer to a claim the claim should be believed until proven false. That is bad thinking and will lead you to believe untrue things. You should not believe something is true until there is good evidence to believe it is true. I don't need an alternate explanation to conclude that the evidence for your claim is insufficient.

What you said is the same as me showing you a video of a monkey in my back yard that flies due to magic and unless you come up with an alternate explanation as to why the monkey is flying we should believe in magic.

2/ accept there were five of these plus the statue on several different continents, different pathologists from different countries in each case
(seven are listed by tesoriero in the case of buenos airies alone, the heart specialists said it was heart, but others said it might be epithelium, they were not used to the changes that heart tissue striation goes through when it is traumatized, zugibe was a specialist )
All came to the same conclusion. All decided human flesh.

So what? I believe it was human flesh. But you cannot show that it was created by a miracle.

3. In the case of buenos airies Tesoriero - a solicitor performed the chain of custody hand delivered to labs. But lawrence - a stated non believer - the pathologist did his own custody on the statue of cochambamba.
Soubaniec on sokolka etc. There was nobody common between some of them orchestrating a fraud.

Yet these samples were left alone for long periods of time before they brought them to a lab. In the video I uploaded at the end they debunked the one in Mexico unless Jesus was a woman.

Study it all. Then decide. Good order.
Until somebody actually studies them I am done justifiying it all.

Why? It is up to you to provide the evidence. I looked into it and spent my time doing it. What I found doe snot justify any further investigation. Am I supposed to spent all my time studying all miracles you say are miracles? If you are unwilling to present the evidence or this is all you have then I am not convinced. Stop blaming others for your lack of evidence. I bet no matter how much I study and if I have a different conclusion than you, you will just claim I did not study enough.

Willessees journey is fascinating. He was the worst sceptic of all. He earned a living from debunking frauds.
He ended convinced.
Zugibe was a sceptic, until the work converted him.

So what. If he was convinced by the evidence you presented he has a bad epistemology. Many people are convinced that Allah is the true God why don't you believe them just because they are convinced?

Lawrence wrote a review for teseroriero, saying it was enough to seriously question idarwins view of life.

Darwin was wrong on some things but I don't see how it questions evolution. Evolution and miraculous generation can exist together. There is overwhelming good evidence that evolution happened. I can show you that evidence if you want.

 

[Mountainmike]

I said the evidence is not convincing for belief.

You will never know till you look.
As for free... most of the worthwhile science is either in books or behind a paywall. As they say in yorkshire "owts for nowt!"

Its not my job to prove anything. Since the forensic pathologists who did research them (at least 30 involved at a guess) say they were inexplicable and not fake, I will take their view over yours.

I prefer what the pathologists say, to apriori sceptics.

However: critical thinking does demand you focus on issues that matter. In the case of a "floating lego brick" to use my analogy, the chain of custody doesnt matter to prove it is supernatural (beyond nature) , only the proof it floats and discounting means of hoax.

Where it comes from then does matter in deciding what it signifies.

Pure cold logic. And evidence.

By way of comparison
There is no evidence for a first evolving cell from chemical soup whose antecedents were non living, non evolving. No evidence that it could happen, did happen or any structure for it. Even dawkins admits that. Keep up. He just contends it did. I might even believe him if he ever came up with evidence other than wishful thinking.

Clearly some aspects of evolution did happen.
As for Darwins thesis all life come from successive small change. These phenomena challenge that.

 

[Mountainmike]

^^^^ THIS ^^^^ and

THAT >>>>



are not the same thing.

Dawkins was clearly talking about the second (the origin of life) and not the first (your favorite "miracle").

Pick all the nits you like.
We are talking about mechanisms for life from non living things. Which is the dictionary definition of abiogenesis. Call it what you will, if you dont want to use english words in their proper meaning!

Miracles plural.
Not just many eucharistic miracles , there are hundreds in history but only 5 analyzed with modern science

But also the bleeding and weeping statues are alive, only one analyzed with modern science. Scab tissue does not form with deposited post mortem blood, and white cells do not form in vitro or post mortem. They lyze.

In contrast -First cell from soup, no evidence at all to analyze. That it either could happen, did happen or any structure for the first cell with a process to it from non living things.

 

[Mountainmike]

Just one final point before I move on.
Several have asked "give an example that the universe is just a phenomenon, the underyling reality is more complex and unknown"

How can I , it is unknowable and unknown. Ask Kant.
Are we observing a shadow of the universe to use platos analogy (I would say a projection) Of course!

I can only give a plausibility argument.
Projection from higher orders of dimensions to lower gives both "one to many mappings" and "many to one" mappings.

The red circle or blue rectangle seen in a 2D projection can both be an orientation of a single cylinder blue on the side, red on the ends.
Thats a one to many mapping.
Equally the red circle can be a sphere, or a circle or spiral end on, or multiple objects. Thats a many to one mapping. Projection in senses loses the reality in favour of an observation model.

It is a like asking a person who is blue green colourblind. "which colour do you see? Green or BLue" The question is meaningless. Senses have prevented knowing the reality.

Going back to our old friend Kant. The underlying reality is noumena - the metaphysics. The phenomena describe as much about our senses as they do about what they sense. The universe is unknowable. Patterns in what it normally does are very useful!

We cannot know the noumena. Basic philosophy.

The arch evolutionist will say our senses develop only as far as needed to dominate in survival. They do not need to sense more. The universe is unknowable. There is everywhere for God to hide if he wishes, since we cannot explain anythign. We can only use patterns in what we observe. The models are man made in peoples heads they are not the universe itself.

Then there is consciousness...nobody can explain that!

 

[Hans Blaster]

But also the bleeding and weeping statues are alive, only one analyzed with modern science. Scab tissue does not form with deposited post mortem blood, and white cells do not form in vitro or post mortem. They lyze.

The statues are "alive"? Is that really what you think? That's quite a different claim than the statues are bleeding real blood.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can only give a plausibility argument.
Projection from higher orders of dimensions to lower gives both "one to many mappings" and "many to one" mappings.

What "dimensions" are being projected into ours? Please do tell.

 

[Mountainmike]

The statues are "alive"? Is that really what you think? That's quite a different claim than the statues are bleeding real blood.

The cells are alive. They exhibit vital signs. Like scab forming. Like leucocytes. They cannot do that in vitro, post mortem, but they do.

 

[Mountainmike]

What "dimensions" are being projected into ours? Please do tell.

It is unknowable.

I keep suggesting people read such as Baggotts "quantum reality" or even rizzis "science before science" to get an idea of what science can tell you about the universe and what it cannot.
Kant is hard to read, so dont start there.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Going back to our old friend Kant. The underlying reality is noumena - the metaphysics. The phenomena describe as much about our senses as they do about what they sense. The universe is unknowable. Patterns in what it normally does are very useful!

We cannot know the noumena. Basic philosophy.

Kant isn't my friend. Didn't know him. He died before my grandparents were born.

"Meta"physics. Hah. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Mountainmike]

Kant isn't my friend. Didn't know him. He died before my grandparents were born.

So did maxwell and copernicus. So the planets have gone AWOL and your telly doesnt work since the day JCM died. Oh wait...

Maybe the truth lives on without them.

They observed it, and commented on patterns they saw, derived models from axioms already extant. they didnt create it. They did not maintain it. The models they made including kants "noumena" and phenomena were just models of the truth. The reality is unkowable. Kant was right about that.