Evidence of miracles.

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,646
11,691
54
USA
✟293,957.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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 ideas live on.

"Telly"?

Copernicus didn't even explain *how* the orbits worked, just the geometry.

Kant can't be my friend because I couldn't have known him. I don't care about philosophy in general, so I'm not sure why I should care about his.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't care about philosophy

Since science is "knowledge" and philosophy is
"the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence"

That figures from your responses. You are trapped in the "matrix" of scientific laws thinking they are the reality! Which is why you oppose all that doesnt fit the matrix. You Cannot find the way out of the intellectual prison, Poor soul.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,646
11,691
54
USA
✟293,957.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Since science is "knowledge" and philosophy is
"the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence"

That figures from your responses. You are trapped in the "matrix" of scientific laws thinking they are reality! Cannot find the way out of the intellectual prison, Poor soul.

[Disembodied] Souls are physically impossible.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
[Disembodied] Souls are physically impossible.
According to the scientific laws of the present.

But then they are just man made laws that fit where they touch what normally happens. Man put that boundary there, the universe didnt. The universe is altogether stranger.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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!"
If the person making claims refuses to provide the evidence they site that is not my problem.

Its not my job to prove anything.
It is if you are making the claim.

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.
Fine but they are using unsound logic. There can be no way to know if something is inexplicable since there is no way to know of explanations that they cannot think or know of. It is a fallacy.

I prefer what the pathologists say, to apriori sceptics.
You should prefer pathologists with sound logic. Your apriori skeptic comment is a just an ad hominem. I have told you why I think the evidence is unsound or not sufficient for belief. You have refused to engage these.

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.
How can you possible rule out a hoax? This is where you make your mistake. You cannot rule out solutions that you don't know about. The only way to rule out a hoax is to provide evidence it is supernatural.

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

Pure cold logic. And evidence.
Except that is a different situation and claim. The Lego claim you are witnessing the unexplained. With the Eucharist you never witness anything supernatural. You just are analyzing human tissue that you cannot know where it came from.

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.
I agree. And so does Dawkins that there is not enough evidence to believe how life began. However, again you cannot conclude then that it was supernatural. The scientific consensus on how life began is "we don't know".

Clearly some aspects of evolution did happen.
As for Darwins thesis all life come from successive small change. These phenomena challenge that.
How so? Why can't both be true?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,646
11,691
54
USA
✟293,957.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
According to the scientific laws of the present.

But then they are just man made laws that fit where they touch what normally happens. Man put that boundary there, the universe didnt. The universe is altogether stranger.

Sorry. But the physical parameter space of unknown forces that could both be strong enough and localized enough to interact with the body is fully explored.

I would give your claims the slightest of consideration on this if you hadn't fallen for multiple scams and denied multiple areas of science in the same thread.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.
Then you should not believe it is.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
The statues are "alive"? Is that really what you think? That's quite a different claim than the statues are bleeding real blood.
It is different, but of, course, it doesn't change the fact that many of these claims have been shown to be hoaxes, and even the church has dismissed a number of them: Weeping statues.

The claim that just because most of them are hoaxes doesn't mean they're all hoaxes needs high-quality evidence to be substantiated.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No evidence will ever satisfy apriori sceptics.
Their resistance is a matter of belief, not science.
They demonstrate the same behaviour they criticise in others.


These are multiple events and locations , with nothing and nobody in common between the events or analysing teams.

In the one corner you have respected pathologists saying not only are these heart tissue, suffering trauma , with signs of life at time of sampling, who consider that science cannot explain them and for a myriad of reasons they would not know where to begin to fake them. How do you have modern human tissue with no nuclear code, only mitichondrial and white cells, blood pushed out of bread not in. These are the people who actually analysed them , took the samples etc. Actual cardiologists recognising heart tissue. That’s high quality evidence a court would accept.

in the Buenos airies event alone there are 8-10 independent scientists whose opinion was sought along the way.

In the other corner you have sceptics who were not there, have not seen the samples, wouldn’t know heart tissue if it hit them on the head saying it’s a fake.
How does a priest or others in a backward parish fool forensic science? How were they faked: science doesn’t know how to do that. Even if anyone knew how, there is no person in common to orchestrate the sequence of samples. So what evidence have you for fake? The chain of custody is irrelevant in that context because the samples themselves cannot be faked by any known process.

So beyond reasonable doubt they are what is claimed.

Inexplicable appearance of heart tissue with signs of trauma and life. Where once was only flour and water. All in connection with Eucharist.

The sceptic challenge is from belief not science.

Despite Harvard, NASA and rich philanthropists pouring a fortune into origin of life research, there is still not the first clue about the structure of the first cell that can evolve, whose antecedents were all non living.

You all believe that without evidence.
Disbelieve Eucharistic miracles with evidence.
Vive la difference!


It is different, but of, course, it doesn't change the fact that many of these claims have been shown to be hoaxes, and even the church has dismissed a number of them: Weeping statues.

The claim that just because most of them are hoaxes doesn't mean they're all hoaxes needs high-quality evidence to be substantiated.





If the person making claims refuses to provide the evidence they site that is not my problem.

It is if you are making the claim.

Fine but they are using unsound logic. There can be no way to know if something is inexplicable since there is no way to know of explanations that they cannot think or know of. It is a fallacy.

You should prefer pathologists with sound logic. Your apriori skeptic comment is a just an ad hominem. I have told you why I think the evidence is unsound or not sufficient for belief. You have refused to engage these.

How can you possible rule out a hoax? This is where you make your mistake. You cannot rule out solutions that you don't know about. The only way to rule out a hoax is to provide evidence it is supernatural.

Except that is a different situation and claim. The Lego claim you are witnessing the unexplained. With the Eucharist you never witness anything supernatural. You just are analyzing human tissue that you cannot know where it came from.

I agree. And so does Dawkins that there is not enough evidence to believe how life began. However, again you cannot conclude then that it was supernatural. The scientific consensus on how life began is "we don't know".

How so? Why can't both be true?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Scams? yet you have no evidence other than belief that the pathologists were scammed!

You are still using a sceptic trope based on false philosophy,

“ experience of consciousness away from body may be there in anecdotes , but it cannot happen in theory, so the experiences must be false”
You have got the horse and cart back to front.

The axiomatic model that includes “ forces” is a manmade model of repeatable observations not the universe. You have no idea what is actually there.

Even that man made model, accepts that most of the matter and energy doesn’t interact ( that’s the meaning of dark) So you cannot know what is present , even observing you, provided it doesn’t interact with the things you observe.

And from philosophy: In your own model your senses evolve only as needed for survival advantage. You don’t need to sense what does not interact with things needed for survival. In short you are blind to the extent of reality.

You are still trapped in a prison of not knowing the limitations of science seemingly.




Sorry. But the physical parameter space of unknown forces that could both be strong enough and localized enough to interact with the body is fully explored.

I would give your claims the slightest of consideration on this if you hadn't fallen for multiple scams and denied multiple areas of science in the same thread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No evidence will ever satisfy apriori sceptics.
Their resistance is a matter of belief, not science.
They demonstrate the same behaviour they criticise in others.
This is a very poor and dishonest epistemology. You have inoculated yourself against truth. You will never know if you are right or wrong about your beliefs. I gave my reasons why I am not convinced by your claims and instead of responding to my concerns you just say I am an apriori skeptic. See how that is dishonest? Now that you have made that claim about me then you need to back it up. Prove that I am an apriori skeptic.

The fact is I am unconvinced by the evidence and I laid out my case why I am unconvinced. Either respond to my concerns or not. But don't lie about me and say I just don't want to know. That is untrue.

These are multiple events and locations , with nothing and nobody in common between the events or analysing teams.

In the one corner you have respected pathologists saying not only are these heart tissue, suffering trauma , with signs of life at time of sampling, who consider that science cannot explain them and for a myriad of reasons they would not know where to begin to fake them. How do you have modern human tissue with no nuclear code, only mitichondrial and white cells, blood pushed out of bread not in. These are the people who actually analysed them , took the samples etc. Actual cardiologists recognising heart tissue. That’s high quality evidence a court would accept.

in the Buenos airies event alone there are 8-10 independent scientists whose opinion was sought along the way.

In the other corner you have sceptics who were not there, have not seen the samples, wouldn’t know heart tissue if it hit them on the head saying it’s a fake.
How does a priest or others in a backward parish fool forensic science? How were they faked: science doesn’t know how to do that. Even if anyone knew how, there is no person in common to orchestrate the sequence of samples. So what evidence have you for fake? The chain of custody is irrelevant in that context because the samples themselves cannot be faked by any known process.
I have given my reasons why these are not convincing evidences. Repeating them does not make them true. Do you have the ability to respond to my objections?

So beyond reasonable doubt they are what is claimed.
That is your conclusion. But you don't get to make that conclusion for anyone else. I have laid out my case as to why I think that conclusion is unfounded.

Inexplicable appearance of heart tissue with signs of trauma and life. Where once was only flour and water. All in connection with Eucharist.
The word Inexplicable as I have said cannot be used as proof that it is a miracle. You cannot rule out what you don't know. It really sounds like you have a script you follow and cannot think for yourself when challenged.

The sceptic challenge is from belief not science.
Wrong again. Did you even try to understand my objections? My disbelief of your claims are from reason, logic and epistemology. Not science. BTW, I never said these were false claims.

Despite Harvard, NASA and rich philanthropists pouring a fortune into origin of life research, there is still not the first clue about the structure of the first cell that can evolve, whose antecedents were all non living.
True, but that does not give you a reason to conclude a miracle. We do not know how life began but that is not proof that is happened miraculously.

You all believe that without evidence.
Disbelieve Eucharistic miracles with evidence.
Vive la difference!
Disbelieving they were miracles is not the same thing as saying it is not a miracle. This is good insight into your epistemology. I do not have to have evidence that the miracles are false. You need to provide evidence that the miracles are true. If I said I have a living unicorn in my closet at home, would you believe it until you had proof that I did not have one in my closet? I hope not. Same for your Eucharistic miracles. I am not saying the are false, I am saying there is not enough good evidence to believe they are true. This is something you don't seem to understand..

I spent a lot of my time looking at the evidence you presented and responding to it after you challenged someone to look into it. Your refusal to respond to my objections and hand waiving of all objections as "apriori skeptics" just gives good evidence that you really do not care about what is true.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I do not get why it's a bad thing to be skeptical about such extraordinary claims.
Nothing wrong with that.

Thomas was skeptical.

But one takes skepticism too far when one throws the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,131
6,384
29
Wales
✟346,778.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Nothing wrong with that.

Thomas was skeptical.

But one takes skepticism too far when one throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Except it's not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If try and use evidence to explain miracles, and then that evidence is shown to be bad evidence or even just worthless as evidence, then you've basically failed.

Using science to explain religion is like to trying to explain cheese with nuclear engineering. It doesn't work.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Using science to explain religion is like to trying to explain cheese with nuclear engineering. It doesn't work.
And since it doesn't work, concluding cheese doesn't exist is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, isn't it?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,131
6,384
29
Wales
✟346,778.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
And since it doesn't work, concluding cheese doesn't exist is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, isn't it?

I never said that miracles don't exist. You (not you yourself but a general you) would just be hard pressed to use science to explain something that, by its nature, cannot be explained by science.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I never said that miracles don't exist. You (not you yourself but a general you) would just be hard pressed to use science to explain something that, by its nature, cannot be explained by science.
Well if you want to make a changeover from skepticism to science, then that changes things.

Science throws the baby out with the bathwater, when Christian claims can't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Then, when these claims are presented as miracles, science (i.e., the collective body of scientists and armchair academians) pluto "miracles" to "magic," just to keep their claims legitimate in their own eyes.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,131
6,384
29
Wales
✟346,778.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Well if you want to make a changeover from skepticism to science, then that changes things.

Science throws the baby out with the bathwater, when Christian claims can't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Then, when these claims are presented as miracles, science (i.e., the collective body of scientists and armchair academians) pluto "miracles" to "magic," just to keep their claims legitimate in their own eyes.

But skepticism is important in science. Skepticism means that you study the evidence shown to you, to see if it's actual evidence and not just claims. And, like I have said countless times before, if you try and use science to explain something, then be prepared for it be treated like it would be if it was science.

And can you actually find any scientist claiming that miracles = magic?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But skepticism is important in science.
Ooookay.

If you want to change the subject back to skepticism, let me repeat myself.

There's nothing wrong with skepticism.

Thomas was skeptical.

But skepticism goes too far when it throws the baby out with the bathwater.

That's the only "bad thing" I can come up with in your Post 391.
Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Skepticism means that you study the evidence shown to you, to see if it's actual evidence and not just claims.
I don't care what skepticism means.

Skepticism goes too far when skepticism throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Period.
Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And, like I have said countless times before, if you try and use science to explain something, then be prepared for it be treated like it would be if it was science.
Will do. Just like I have so many other times.
Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And can you actually find any scientist claiming that miracles = magic?
No.

But if I had to guess, I would say Aron Ra or Charles Darwin.

But for the record ... no.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,131
6,384
29
Wales
✟346,778.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
If you want to change the subject back to skepticism, let me repeat myself.

You can repeat yourself all you want, and all you'll do is show that you do have a problem with skepticism as soon as someone tries to bring science into it. Again: if you want to use science to prove something, then expect it to be treated with science, that means people will be skeptical about it.

No.

But if I had to guess, I would say Aron Ra or Charles Darwin.

But for the record ... no.

So, in other words, you're lying about the claim that science 'plutos miracles into magic'.
 
Upvote 0