Evidence of miracles.

[Opdrey]

Imagine Moses in the mountain near God, and someone says to him, consider he doesn't exist please because not everyone is like you, well, christians may not have that kind of encounter with God so close, but they did have their little experiences with him too, the gospel is not about belief only, is God acting and changing lives.

I totally "get" that you have experience of God. Do you think that everyone does and that some of us are just too stupid/blind/less-than-you that we missed them?

I'm not saying your experience of God is somehow flawed. Just that it seems that the only way you can deal with people who have sought but failed to find God is to just repeat your chants as if that will change something. Almost as if you don't believe others can have a different experience from you.

 

[Opdrey]

Which camp is Jesus in?

I don't know what to do with this question. Was Jesus real? If so was he actually the Son of God and homoousios with God?

The more I think about it the more fascinating your question becomes. Because it rests on an assumption that, as in all things in faith, requires faith that it is what it claims to be. What happens if the single most important being to EVER trod the planet earth left no real trace of his physical presence? No contemporary writings about him, nothing?

Thomas was allowed a touch to confirm his doubts. Was Thomas damned to hell for doubting? Did God not realize that the world has a LOT of Thomases? Given that we are forbade any wound to touch are we thus damned?

You are fortunate because you "believe". How hard was it for you? Don't tell me about your misspent youth and how you stumbled on the truth of God and found peace. No, once you learned about God how hard was it to believe so perfectly that your faith in unshakable?

For a lot of people it is automatic.

Does God simply want people like me who fail to "feel his presence" to just pray anyway? Should I create a potemkin faith so that I dot all the "i's" and cross all the "t's"? Is that something that God would like very much?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Imagine Moses in the mountain near God, and someone says to him, consider he doesn't exist please because not everyone is like you, well, christians may not have that kind of encounter with God so close, but they did have their little experiences with him too, the gospel is not about belief only, is God acting and changing lives.

Indeed -- Theistic people have their little experiences and choose to attribute those experiences to a god; Christians go a step further and attribute it to the Judeo-Christian "God."

But that is still a choice -- you can I could have similar if not identical experiences; you call it "God,"and I call it "luck." What do you call that choice if not "belief"?

 

[Opdrey]

Opdrey
Two recent statements of yours.
“ it is clear you are not familiar with standard science-reference protocol”
“It's OK to admit you don't understand abiogenesis or biochemistry very well”
You know nothing about me, but are happy to insult: I would never dream of doing the same. I will challenge only on what you write.
Do you want a conversation or not?

Your assertions on Fatima and the shroud are not substantiated by the facts. On Fatima I made my stance clear. Many optical phenomena manifest the sun, are real, show movement and are localised, from rainbows to Aurora , from mirages to the light of Venus but they are not a direct image of sun.

The sun did not have to move to be seen to move in an objective sense. Rainbows are real and very subjective. I can’t say what caused Fatima. I can say beyond reasonable doubt it was real, localised, physical , not mass hypnosis or autosuggestion, as you would know of you read the underlying evidence. Nor did it blind those watching.

But here is the important issue - it was extraordinary, never repeated before or since and happened at the day and time prophesied. That makes it impossible for science to explain. Not the phenomenon, the prophecy of it.

The shroud dating really was a disgrace, and brings shame on those involved.. It demonstrates how many scientists lose all objectivity around religious phenomena. They even fiddled their results for publication as FOI , to get logbooks have proved. The shroud is very old, nobody knows how to fake it, it is the shroud of a crucified man.

So, if you treat with respect, I will give you respect and might even repeat -yet again - some of the places you can find what I said.

if you would like to apply Occam’s razor to Eucharistic miracles but do so only CONSISTENTLY with the science and facts , I would be fascinated to see how your conclusions differ to those of the pathologists.

Are you refering to the Eucharistic Miracle in Poland (Sokolka)? HERE

(You know you could just have said "Sokolka Miracle" and I could look it up.)

 

[NBB]

Indeed -- Theistic people have their little experiences and choose to attribute those experiences to a god; Christians go a step further and attribute it to the Judeo-Christian "God."

But that is still a choice -- you can I could have similar if not identical experiences; you call it "God,"and I call it "luck." What do you call that choice if not "belief"?

You don't know what i experienced, and you are assuming things with your atheistic perspective.

 

[Mountainmike]

The APPEARANCE to an observer could be local.
And if it simply the appearance of movement of the sun it would be easily explained as an error by the observer.

if you actually studied Fatima
( I own at least ten books, including several that have hundreds of eye witness statements , in native Portuguese and English, several in English and Portuguese)

you would know that lazy tropes in place of research do not confirm that hypothesis. The number, nature of observers, geographic distribution , and independence of observers show that is not true. The physical effects cannot be explained by “observation error” . Two people viewing a rainbow see it in a different place. Which one in your view made an “ observation error? “

I did suggest you study it before comment. Apparently being “ a chemist “ precludes the need to study. It is hard to know what I have said on which you disagree because of that?

But if you prefer your opinion as someone who was not there , to the 70000 observers, hundreds of reports, many sceptic journalists and so on , including the outcome of an enquiry, then be my guest.

I had hoped we could talk about evidence. What possible purpose is served by me giving links , if you prefer your opinion on Fatima to the evidence, and you insult me twice in succeeding posts?

You are new to these threads, I have referred readers to various websites, videos, statements of pathologists, eg the book on tixtla of which the back half is forensic reports, probably 60 pages. I do not refuse, or dodge, i am simply becoming cynical about the value of doing so. You will note nobody here is interested in other than what skepdic or skeptoid has to say.

I have also suggested people buy the books. But apparently, where I have to pay for access to many journals, those on this site refuse to pay. Alas knowledge is not free. My books onthe shroud probably cost several hundred which is why I know most of what there is to know about it. Books and videos on Eucharistic miracles a couple of hundred too.

But Yet again I will oblige - you will find a précis on “ therealpresence.org” for each of Buenos airies , sokolka, tixtla, legnica.

I told you the statement by pathologist Lawrence “ convincing evidence of creation...the formation of human heart tissue from an inanimate wafer”

Follow the videos eg blood of Christ from tesoriero and willesee, who spent 20 years investigating.

The best book is newly released “ my human heart “ tesoriero.
Castarnons book on tixtla is worthwhile. As indeed the book on lanciano as an introduction.

 

[Mountainmike]

Are you refering to the Eucharistic Miracle in Poland (Sokolka)? HERE

(You know you could just have said "Sokolka Miracle" and I could look it up.)

I did. I referred to Buenos airies , tixtla , sokolka , legnica
Many times across these threads. See my previous post.

 

[Opdrey]

if you actually studied Fatima

Only just a little bit. Given that I don't believe in the Ganesha Milk Miracle of 1995 I similarly don't really believe the Fatima Miracle.

This is not to say that I would 100% say it didn't happen. Just that I have no real reason to believe it did. Otherwise I'd have to be any number of faiths because so many faiths have miracles.

I did suggest you study it before comment. Apparently being “ a chemist “ precludes the need to study.

No, it just means that if you want to have a conversation about the science of analytical chemistry we can do so.

I had hoped we could talk about evidence.

I would gladly. But you'd need to actually be willing to discuss it as well.

What possible purpose is served by me giving links , if you prefer your opinion on Fatima

It's called "supporting your own argument" which is something people who actually believe their own arguments are often willing to do.

I have also suggested people buy the books. But apparently, where I have to pay for access to many journals, those on this site refuse to pay. Alas knowledge is not free. My books onthe shroud probably cost several hundred which is why I know most of what there is to know about it. Books and videos on Eucharistic miracles a couple of hundred too.

You have spent a LOT of time now telling us about your library and its monetary value. Kudso.

But Yet again I will oblige - you will find a précis on “ therealpresence.org” for each of Buenos airies , sokolka, tixtla, legnica.

OK, so not a scientific or even remotely unbiased source. Got it. Thanks.

 

[Opdrey]

I did. I referred to Buenos airies , tixtla , sokolka , legnica
Many times across these threads. See my previous post.

Yeah, thanks.

Is there a reason you never capitalize proper nouns?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Are you refering to the Eucharistic Miracle in Poland (Sokolka)? HERE

(You know you could just have said "Sokolka Miracle" and I could look it up.)

But obfuscation to create the illusion of profundity is half the fun!

 

[Opdrey]

But obfuscation to create the illusion of profundity is half the fun!

I can't really fault Mountain, I've had times when I've gone over a point so many times it just gets boring going over it again for a n00b. It just would have helped in the clouds of words he threw up if he had taken just a second to at least give more than vague indications of which specific miracle he was talking about.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You don't know what i experienced, and you are assuming things with your atheistic perspective.

And you don't know what I have experienced, and are assuming things through your Christian perspective.

Which is why I specified that IF we had had similar or identical experiences, we might interpret them differently... our interpretations are "belief."

The Bible is, among numerous other things, a written record of a culture's experiences, assumed through their Hebrew perspective.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I can't really fault Mountain, I've had times when I've gone over a point so many times it just gets boring going over it again for a n00b. It just would have helped in the clouds of words he threw up if he had taken just a second to at least give more than vague indications of which specific miracle he was talking about.

I would agree, but at this point, I'm fairly certain he's doing it on purpose.

 

[Mountainmike]

2 straw men.
1 non sequitur
1 utter irrelevance
1 ad hominem.

0 discussion of evidence
When you want to discuss evidence, using critical thinking, not apriori opinions of Fatima let me know.

Only just a little bit. Given that I don't believe in the Ganesha Milk Miracle of 1995 I similarly don't really believe the Fatima Miracle.

This is not to say that I would 100% say it didn't happen. Just that I have no real reason to believe it did. Otherwise I'd have to be any number of faiths because so many faiths have miracles.



No, it just means that if you want to have a conversation about the science of analytical chemistry we can do so.



I would gladly. But you'd need to actually be willing to discuss it as well.



It's called "supporting your own argument" which is something people who actually believe their own arguments are often willing to do.



You have spent a LOT of time now telling us about your library and its monetary value. Kudso.



OK, so not a scientific or even remotely unbiased source. Got it. Thanks.

 

[Mountainmike]

I have had the chance to witness many responses to evidence of possible miracles.

Here is the sceptic faith line of defence( adherence to which demands never looking at the evidence )

1/ to suggest clever analytical people often have blind spots to even consider such things.
2/ to attack the poster with a series of illinformed ad hominems eg they can’t be scientists to consider it
3/ to use a set of straw men, eg comparing with other known frauds, when there is nothing in common
4/ to use a series of sceptic tropes eg “pious fraud” “ psychosomatic” when it has nothing in common with the phenomenon
5/ to even descend to looking at skepdic or skeptoid for arguments against , when they will only accept peer reviewed journals they say! Hypocrites the lot of them.
6/ when all else fails ,they change to other ground , like try to deviate to the ark.. or similar, where they think their arguments are stronger.

A scientist would look at the evidence before 1-6

The oddity is after all the usual lines of defence , and a few ad hominems fail, some then expect cooperation with evidence. Why would I bother?

Despite all the blather the evidence of
Eucharistic miracles, defies explanation for all who dare look.
Not one of 1-6 changes the facts.

Every now and then a few pick up the ball run with it, and are gobsmacked about the truth when they find it, the one or two make it all worthwhile.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is exactly your position, not mine.
If the forensic reports of Eucharistic miracles said “ fraud” I would be happy to believe it. They didn’t. So you invent any old sophistry to ignore a clear pattern.

But it isn't clear, is it? You were unable to answer questions about your assertions or provide verifiable evidence for them. Just repeating them more energetically is not adequate - as I suspect you realise but can't admit.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As actual status. It isn’t even a valid hypothesis.

No evidence it happened.
No evidence it repeats.
No way to repeat it.
No conjectured structure for the first cell.
No conjectured chemical pathway to that from non living. ( the abiogenesis bit)
No quantum probability, band gap or likelihood for that pathway.
No conjectured path way from that cell to the present minimum cell.
No pile of failed debris from self designing cells that couldn’t eat or replicate! The trail of debris from failed blind watchmaking.

NOTHING.

It is not a hypothesis , since there is no evidence it happened , mechanism for it conjectured so nothing to test by experiment. Check Basic scientific process.


You also have an irreducible complexity problem.
What first cell can have been complex enough to evolve to what we have, but simple enough to result as an inert chemical reaction of non living things? the first living thing. You have no answer.

ALL that exists by analogy is some conjecture on how a roof tile , or a brick might have occurred.
But no evidence of how roof tiles or bricks came to be is evidence of self building or self designing or self evolving houses. Bricks and roof tiles are evidence of houses, not spontaneous appearance of them.

At present the simplest cell is more complex than all the chemical factories in a typical country put together. 18000 proteins. Works flawlessly.


All you have is conjecture.

I am open to the idea, but there is no substance at all.
But that is because i care about evidence, not dawkins utterly stupid assertion he has no idea how it happened but he claims it is a “ fact” that it did! He may be old, he is not old enough to have witnesses it!

I have actual forensic evidence of five instances where complex organism and cells came into existence, in a way that makes them impossible to fake by present means. How does human dna fail to sequence in samples that are clearly not old - samples young enough to have white cells still extant?

So it is you not me that has a problem with letting your beliefs override evidence!
You prefer a pile of supposition to actual physical evidence.

All points already addressed. As before, unless you know something about a topic, you will look foolish trying to criticise it, the argument from incredulity is a fallacy of ignorance, and simply repeating unsubstantiated claims doesn't amount to evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

But it isn't clear, is it? You were unable to answer questions about your assertions or provide verifiable evidence for them. Just repeating them more energetically is not adequate - as I suspect you realise but can't admit.

You used a series of generic tropes that failed to address the specifics in the hope enough smoke equated to fire.

In at least 3 of the cases I cite - the pathologist took their own samples.

So chain of custody was an irrelevance, and even if it mattered:
there is no known means of falsifying them certainly by a priest!
You cannot take heart samples whose DNA does not sequences or take samples that have white cells in vitro for more than hours.
Robert Lawrence used the words “ compelling evidence of creation … of heart tissue from a wafer”

You haven’t contested it , and so I still take the pathologists view, until you have a compelling narrative to disregard it, you don’t.

What I accuse you of most is intellectual laziness, driven by confirmation bias. You want to dismiss them so look for the easiest argument you can find, regardless of whether it is relevant. And even use skepdic as a source knowing it is unreliable.

 

[Mountainmike]

All points already addressed. As before, unless you know something about a topic, you will look foolish trying to criticise it, the argument from incredulity is a fallacy of ignorance, and simply repeating unsubstantiated claims doesn't amount to evidence.

Show me 1/ the structure of the first conjectured cell.
2/ The inert process by which it happened from non living constituents. ( the abiogenesis step).
3/ What structure of genome it had?
4/ The pathway from that cell to present cells
Till you have 2 you no have no potential experiment therefore no hypothesis that confirms abiogenesis.

You have nothing except a few plausibility arguments that miss the hardest puzzle of all. Oh… and literally a library of failed attempts at answering the above. A poor return for billions.

if you do have a structure, show me, I’m fascinated.
But then since the experiment if successful would be in every newspaper in the western world I doubt it!.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which is utter b@ll@x, but believe it if you prefer it to evidence.

Needless to point out, that author wasn’t there. Yet you believe his rants?

I prefer the evidence of those who were there. Several books full of statements include rabid sceptics, atheists and professional and scientific withnesses, That’s the difference between us.

I like the actual evidence. I study it. You are happy to accept the words of any who agree with your apriori view.

You have form on this:
- accepting skeptoid as evidence at Fatima, not those , including scientists who actually witnessed it.

- preferring a magician who wasn’t involved to the hundreds of doctors/ medical professors who concluded at Lourdes.

-taking pure supposition as “ the best hypothesis” regarding abiogenesis whilst actual forensic evidence of created life is ignored?

Which one of us is guilty of confirmation bias?

Well, you've confirmed what I said earlier - you will only find evidence that supports your position credible and you react badly to any questioning of that evidence. I notice you make no attempt to rebut the arguments presented.

For my part, I don't know exactly what happened at Fatima, but I give the claimed miracle extremely low credibility, particularly in view of the contradictory eyewitness accounts consistent with the more plausible alternatives involving demonstrably unreliable human perception, memory, and group psychology.

ISTM that, if reports of an event can be explained by well-established phenomena, there is no advantage to be gained by invoking the supernatural.