How much freedom?

[Trurl]

Steve80:

I did a poor job of explaining this. I’m not saying it somehow justifies or lessons the severity of the act. With either view, it’s equally important to do what we can to prevent such acts from happening. When you look at these things from a religious point of view, you see more than just the physical act taking place. The person committing the crime is doing serious damage to their soul. The victim of the crime may also be rewarded as a form of expiation, or in the case of the Saints, expiation for others. This unravels a deeper discussion that even some people of faith have a hard time digesting, getting in to sin, suffering, purgation, expiation, etc. Trying to look at it through your point of view, I can see how it sounds ludicrous; if there is a God, why doesn’t He prevent these things.

You got it right. We see that such behavior has (and cannot have) any positive outcome associated with it (no greater good, since the end does never justify the means). As you now say, it is even detrimental to the ones who perform such acts. So why allow something, when it has only negative outcome? No one benefits, and everyone loses. That is as irrational as they come.

Steve80:

It’s something that takes a deeper understanding of faith for things to make more sense, and even then, we can never hope to fully understand as we are limited by our human intellect. It is our spiritual wisdom that gets us closer to that understanding.

Looks like we went a full circle. You gradually dismissed your previous objections, which speaks well of you. The end result is unfortunately something that has been said before: “this problem is a mystery, which cannot be solved on fully rational gound”. But that is not sufficient. One cannot dismiss a problem by calling it a “mystery”.

Steve80:

What’s missing is hope and mercy, which is what really drives people to keep pushing forward towards love and charity, especially in rough times. Is it possible to bring hope to someone when one believes hope ends with death and that all your trials and tribulations resulted in nothingness?

Why not? Nothing lasts “forever”. To live a few decades of happy, healthy and productive life, and at the end leave good memories certainly beats sickness, misery, hunger and desperation.

Steve80:

The example of the play you gave, and why Catholics don’t just go to confession and then have someone off all of us to go to Heaven, is a form of atheist rationalism. The mentality of accepting that solution would not land a Christian in Heaven, as we are responsible not only for taking care of our own souls, but also for loving and caring for the souls of our neighbor.

That is the contradiction in the teaching. The true sacrifice for the christian is not this temporary existence. The real" McCoy" would be to give up the eternal happiness. And such a sacrifice should be rewarded, not punished. By the way, there is no “atheist rationalism”. There is only one kind of rational behavior.

Steve80:

Atheistic logic and reasoning suggests it would be more acceptable for an atheist to take this approach as there would be no point to the joys or sufferings in one’s life. I think that is the irony of the play.

On the very contrary. For an atheist to give up this life is the ultimate sacrifice. Besides there are lots of joys and a lot of happiness in many peoples’ lives. Those, whose “cross” is too hard to bear (contrary to many believers’ assertion) those poor people commit suicide (and their “reward” is eternal torture according to the apologists). And again, there is no “atheistic logic and reasoning”. Reason and logic are the same for everyone.

Steve80:

Atheists try to use reason as a way to disprove God, whereas reason is what brings people to God.

1. There is no need to try to disprove the christian God, just like there is no need to disprove the existence of a married bachelor. Both are “disproven” by their own definitions.
2. How on earth can reason bring people to God? Only faith can do that, and faith is antithetical to reason. As you did in your post, you needed to appeal to some mysticism and referred to “faith”.

Steve80:

Using reason, if you walked into a casino, would you go to the table where the stakes were the chance to lose nothing and gain everything, or gain nothing and lose everything?

That is Pascal’s wager, which is unacceptable even to most believers.

 

[Steve80]

You got it right. We see that such behavior has (and cannot have) any positive outcome associated with it (no greater good, since the end does never justify the means). As you now say, it is even detrimental to the ones who perform such acts. So why allow something, when it has only negative outcome? No one benefits, and everyone loses. That is as irrational as they come.

This strips free will from the offender and denies expiation to the victim. Expiation is a form of God’s mercy, and without free will, we would be slaves. Expiation and free will benefit everyone.

Looks like we went a full circle. You gradually dismissed your previous objections, which speaks well of you. The end result is unfortunately something that has been said before: “this problem is a mystery, which cannot be solved on fully rational gound”. But that is not sufficient. One cannot dismiss a problem by calling it a “mystery”.

Black holes are a mystery. Mathematics says that black holes exist, but it also says that time stops before ever reaching the center. That’s not possible, which means my basic understanding of math could go up against Stephen Hawking in a debate about black holes, disproving mathematics altogether. This, of course, is not true. Without understanding mathematics on a higher level, how can I hope to understand the mysteries of black holes and how mathematics describes what we can not see?

The same is true with faith. There are mysteries that seem to defy the rules, and there are those with little faith that weigh in and say, “that’s not possible.” They believe their “adding and subtracting” of little faith can stand up to the “complex equations and algorithms” of those with great faith. Without a higher level of faith formation, how could one hope to understand the mysteries of God?

If I am willing, I can come to a greater understanding of mathematics, allowing it to show me what I can not see. But too few are willing to come to a greater understanding of faith, allowing it to show them what they can not see. There are other contradictions in math such as infinite numbers and dividing by zero, but we don’t scrap mathematics because we can’t explain them.

That is the contradiction in the teaching. The true sacrifice for the christian is not this temporary existence. The real" McCoy" would be to give up the eternal happiness. And such a sacrifice should be rewarded, not punished. By the way, there is no “atheist rationalism”. There is only one kind of rational behavior.

The greater sacrifice is remaining on Earth, knowing the reward that awaits is in Heaven. Jesus explains this with regard to martyrdom. In the case you describe, sacrificing your soul in this manner would be a sin, thus ceasing to be a sacrifice of love. The person doing the killing would prevent the gospel from being spread, which prevents souls from coming to God. It would be the ultimate offence to God and a crime against the remaining souls on earth.

I should have said, “what atheists believe to be rational.” The same applies to my comments of logic and reason. I was not trying to be condescending if that’s how it came off. I believe there is God; you do not. Yet we both claim our belief to be the rational one. Our approach to what’s rational is different so I used a modifier.

1. There is no need to try to disprove the christian God, just like there is no need to disprove the existence of a married bachelor. Both are “disproven” by their own definitions.
2. How on earth can reason bring people to God? Only faith can do that, and faith is antithetical to reason. As you did in your post, you needed to appeal to some mysticism and referred to “faith”.

According to that statement, mathematics would be disproven and considered mysticism by its own rules. But I’m not giving up on it because one plus one still comes in handy!

Reason brings people to faith; faith brings people to God.

 

[Trurl]

Steve80:

This strips free will from the offender and denies expiation to the victim. Expiation is a form of God’s mercy, and without free will, we would be slaves. Expiation and free will benefit everyone.

Well, since we have dispensed with the “greater good” defense (hopefully for all times), now you bring up the other major attempt, the “free will” defense. Of course this one does not work either, for several good reasons.

First: you did not specify which “free will” are you talking about, the freedom to “will, wish, desire” to perform an act, or the ability of actually performing that act (this one is sometimes called freedom of action)? According to the first definition the actual ability to perform an act is not important, it is sufficient that our internal freedom to “will, wish, desire” the act would be left alone. (I met quite a few people, who seriously subscribed to this notion. Amazing.)

If you take the first definiton, then God can safely remove the ability of the rapist to perform his act, since the internal freedom is not touched, and all is fine. If you consider that free will also includes the ability to act of that will, then you must realize that most of what we “will” is beyond our ability to carry out. Some evil person might “will” to hurt others by sheer force of will, and of course will not be able to do it (hehe, lots of “wills” in this sentence ). Our ability to carry out our “wishes, wills, desires” is already seriously limited. As such what is one more small limitation, which will benefit everyone?

Also, the “principle” that “unlimited free will” is a good thing is just a subjective opinion, not a metaphysical truism. As such the so called “free will defense” is based on an irrational subjective opinion, and cannot be taken seriously.

Now, for your assertion that without free will we would be “slaves”. Also heard it far too many times. No one says that we need to be fully converted into robots, only that the amout of freedom is sometimes too much (when it comes to causing harm to others) and other times too little, (when it comes to be able to help others). In one word it is all “messed” up. That is why the title of the tread was chosen. How much freedom should one have? Should our ability to inflict pain on others by simply “willing it” be included? That would certainly increase our “freedom”, would it not?

Also consider, that we habitually limit the ability of criminals to carry out certain deeds by placing them into jails and prisons. If the “freedom” of these people would be paramount, you could argue that these people should be released. Of course you do not, since “deep inside” you understand that unlimited freedom to cause harm is an idiotic idea. As such you, yourself prove that the “free will defense” does not work. All I had to do is point it out.

Steve80:

Black holes are a mystery.

Not in the sense the believers use this word. Agatha Christy also wrote mysteries, and that is also not what I am talking about. I am talking about the “trinity” and the “trassubstantiation”, which are first class examples of contradictions. I am talking about the concepts of the omnimax attributes (no rigorous definition was ever offered for them), and the assertion that God “dwells” outside time, and yet, God is “active”. And zillions of others. These are being swept under the rug by declaring them “mysteries”. Will not be accepted. A being with contradictory attributes cannt exist, just like a “married bachelor” cannot exist - even if someone would assert that “married bachelor” is a “mystery”.

Mathematics is an abstract science, built on certain axioms. A mathematical model may or may not describe a natural phenomenon precisely, but is never reaches a contradiction.

Steve80:

Reason brings people to faith; faith brings people to God.

Just another empty phrase. Sorry. Reason helped me to get rid of faith, and I never looked back.

 

[Steve80]

Well, since we have dispensed with the “greater good” defense (hopefully for all times), now you bring up the other major attempt, the “free will” defense. Of course this one does not work either, for several good reasons.

First: you did not specify which “free will” are you talking about, the freedom to “will, wish, desire” to perform an act, or the ability of actually performing that act (this one is sometimes called freedom of action)? According to the first definition the actual ability to perform an act is not important, it is sufficient that our internal freedom to “will, wish, desire” the act would be left alone. (I met quite a few people, who seriously subscribed to this notion. Amazing.)

If you take the first definiton, then God can safely remove the ability of the rapist to perform his act, since the internal freedom is not touched, and all is fine. If you consider that free will also includes the ability to act of that will, then you must realize that most of what we “will” is beyond our ability to carry out. Some evil person might “will” to hurt others by sheer force of will, and of course will not be able to do it (hehe, lots of “wills” in this sentence ). Our ability to carry out our “wishes, wills, desires” is already seriously limited. As such what is one more small limitation, which will benefit everyone?

Also, the “principle” that “unlimited free will” is a good thing is just a subjective opinion, not a metaphysical truism. As such the so called “free will defense” is based on an irrational subjective opinion, and cannot be taken seriously.

Now, for your assertion that without free will we would be “slaves”. Also heard it far too many times. No one says that we need to be fully converted into robots, only that the amout of freedom is sometimes too much (when it comes to causing harm to others) and other times too little, (when it comes to be able to help others). In one word it is all “messed” up. That is why the title of the tread was chosen. How much freedom should one have? Should our ability to inflict pain on others by simply “willing it” be included? That would certainly increase our “freedom”, would it not?

Also consider, that we habitually limit the ability of criminals to carry out certain deeds by placing them into jails and prisons. If the “freedom” of these people would be paramount, you could argue that these people should be released. Of course you do not, since “deep inside” you understand that unlimited freedom to cause harm is an idiotic idea. As such you, yourself prove that the “free will defense” does not work. All I had to do is point it out.

Ok, this just got sucked into a black hole within my brain. Haha, jk. I’ve never really thought about free will in a way you describe it and I think you have a valid point. As someone pointed out way back in the thread, it kind of reminds me of the movie Minority Report. I’m trying to identify the repercussions of God taking away the action part of free will (this is why you could do so much good because this kind of deep thinking comes naturally to you! ). I suppose taking away the action has unforeseeable consequences as it would then not allow others to “respond” to the action, whatever that response might be. Now we are stepping back into the “greater good.” In all honesty, I don’t have the knowledge of the church’s teachings or words to explain this as I have pointed out I am still at the beginning of my spiritual renewal. What I do know is that it was illness that caused me to get my faith in check to get me moving in the right direction again (I had taken a pretty deep plunge). Ideally, I should have been able to do so without illness, but that’s what it took to wake me up.

Not in the sense the believers use this word. Agatha Christy also wrote mysteries, and that is also not what I am talking about. I am talking about the “trinity” and the “trassubstantiation”, which are first class examples of contradictions. I am talking about the concepts of the omnimax attributes (no rigorous definition was ever offered for them), and the assertion that God “dwells” outside time, and yet, God is “active”. And zillions of others. These are being swept under the rug by declaring them “mysteries”. Will not be accepted. A being with contradictory attributes cannt exist, just like a “married bachelor” cannot exist - even if someone would assert that “married bachelor” is a “mystery”.

We don’t have the mathematics to explain many things, such as the ones I mentioned previously. The same holds true to language. We don’t have the words to properly explain things like the Trinity, but we make due with what we have. We may never fully understand, just as there are contradictions of mathematics we may never understand. Some things are just too mind-boggling for the human brain to comprehend. This concept should hold even more weight with a non-believer because human intellect would be nothing more than the next step in the evolutionary processes, one step removed from apes that grasp none of this; which makes it amazing that we as humans understand as much as we do. It makes a strong case for divine intervention!

Mathematics is an abstract science, built on certain axioms. A mathematical model may or may not describe a natural phenomenon precisely, but is never reaches a contradiction.

The basic rules of multiplication and division reach a contradiction at zero.

Just another empty phrase. Sorry. Reason helped me to get rid of faith, and I never looked back.

A glass is considered empty when a person doesn’t see anything in it. But that doesn’t mean it’s void of substance which the eye cannot see.

 

[fred_conty]

Not necessarily “pressure”, but definitely responsibility. Some people strive under pressure, while others crumble under it.

It all depends on the evidence. And no, you do not “choose” to believe something. Inside, in your subconscious you weigh the available evidence, and either accept the proposition, or reject it. This has been discussed many times, and the skeptics always offer the following experiment: “just choose to believe in the tooth fairy” (after all you already believe in angels and demons). If you can successfully change your “gut” feeling that “fairies are just imaginary beings” (even though many prominent people, like Conan Doyle, for example believed in them) then come back and report the result. No one ever takes the challenge. Do you wonder why?

I most certainly wish the best for you, too. As for prayers, I am sure there are many people who can and will do that much better than I could. After all from my mouth it would be nothing but mockery.

You mentioned, “And no, you do not “choose” to believe something. Inside, in your subconscious you weigh the available evidence, and either accept the proposition, or reject it.”

When Hitler said to his henchmen, “you are superior …”, many swallowed this line. Because they choose to believe. Some probably didn’t but just went along with it, but others did. That is what salesmen do, convince others to choose their product.

Isn’t there more to choosing than mere logic? Aren’t people swayed by many things especially by the heart. How many times have mothers refused to believe something bad about their child when presented with the facts. Aren’t we influenced by many factors to accept or reject ideas.

Even 2nd hand evidence, tho strong, tho very strong, seems very weak in the mind of someone who has been swayed by their prior background or emotions.

For example, at Lourdes in France, which you are familiar with, there are about 60 cases of miracles that have all the paperwork backing them up. Doctors of all faiths, from different parts of the world, who have signed their name to these documents, testifying to their authenticity. And yet, some choose to accept these professional testimonies and others reject them. So just how strong does 2nd hand testimony have to be? There is more to the story of choosing than just evidence.

Just a thought.

 

[Trurl]

Steve80:

I’ve never really thought about free will in a way you describe it and I think you have a valid point.

Good news. Hardly ever does anyone take the effort to really think it over.

I never saw the movie you mentioned, so I looked it up on Wiki, and the resemblance is pretty superficial if there is any resemblance at all. I was not discussing a person who has knowledge of his own future, rather of an electronic system which can detect a special electro-chemical configuartion in the brain (which would indicate an impending violent act) and counteracts it (A little bit like the book “Terminal Man” by Michael Crichton after the “bugs” have been ironed out from the system). My favorite science fiction solution would be the method applied by the Pierson Puppeteers (a herbivore and thus extremely cowardly and peaceful race - author Larry Niven) who created a fully defensive weapon - it would invoke incredible peace and happiness in the would-be attacker. And when one experiences ecstasy, then there can be no violence.

Steve80:

Now we are stepping back into the “greater good.”

No, we are not. That has been concluded, and there is no reason to re-visit it. The church properly teaches that the end does not justify the means, so no “greater good” can justify the prior evil. It is one of the very few teachings of the church which I accept. You put up a “valiant fight” and I appreciate it. Yet, none of the objections are valid. There is no reason to say that the level of our ability to cause harm to others is a “reasonable” one. Our ability to cause harm could be and thus should be lowered - while it would be nice, very nice if our ability to do good would be enhanced. And since God does not do it, it does not speak well about his attitude.

Steve80:

The basic rules of multiplication and division reach a contradiction at zero.

Obviously you are not a mathematician. I am. There is no “contradiction” there.

Steve80:

A glass is considered empty when a person doesn’t see anything in it. But that doesn’t mean it’s void of substance which the eye cannot see.

And then you apply all the different methods to examine that glass. If all the methods indicate a negative result, it is irrational to maintain that the glass has “something” in it, which is undetectable to all the senses and their extentions. Just like the “soul” which cannot be detected, it is irrational to assume that it exists.

By the way, I hope you recovered from your malady, and doing well.

 

[Trurl]

You mentioned, “And no, you do not “choose” to believe something. Inside, in your subconscious you weigh the available evidence, and either accept the proposition, or reject it.”

When Hitler said to his henchmen, “you are superior …”, many swallowed this line. Because they choose to believe. Some probably didn’t but just went along with it, but others did. That is what salesmen do, convince others to choose their product.

Isn’t there more to choosing than mere logic? Aren’t people swayed by many things especially by the heart. How many times have mothers refused to believe something bad about their child when presented with the facts. Aren’t we influenced by many factors to accept or reject ideas.

That is precisely what I was talking about. The “gut feeling” which is not subject to volitional “choice”. The mother, who refuses the fact that her offspring is a murderer, despite all the physical evidence.

Even 2nd hand evidence, tho strong, tho very strong, seems very weak in the mind of someone who has been swayed by their prior background or emotions.

One piece of physical evidence trumps a million testimonies to the contrary. Especially second hand witnesses.

For example, at Lourdes in France, which you are familiar with, there are about 60 cases of miracles that have all the paperwork backing them up. Doctors of all faiths, from different parts of the world, who have signed their name to these documents, testifying to their authenticity. And yet, some choose to accept these professional testimonies and others reject them.

The “miracles” are just an urban legend. If one wishes to establish a “miraculous healing” it cannot be done after the fact. Make a prediction, put your money where your mouth is, and let the chips fall where they may. Doctors make erroneous disgnoses all the time, and the fellow doctors are more than willing to participate in a cover-up. Happens all the time.

And this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Steve80]

Obviously you are not a mathematician. I am. There is no “contradiction” there.

This is exactly the point I’m trying to make! Except in reverse with regard to faith. There are (what appears to be) mathematical contradictions one can’t understand without a deeper knowledge of the subject. The same applies to faith, as I could turn the above statement around substituting mathematics with faith. Stephen Hawking could rattle off all the mathematical jargon in the world and it probably wouldn’t sink in with most people. That which can’t be explained, is filled with abstracts such as dark energy and dark matter in order to make the math work. I’m not knocking on math; I actually find that stuff fascinating and would love to learn more about it. I’m just using it as an example to show how we cannot disregard mathematics or faith, pointing out contradictions on a matter we are unfamiliar with (as in subject, not dark matter ).

 

[aragonjohn1]

That is precisely what I was talking about. The “gut feeling” which is not subject to volitional “choice”. The mother, who refuses the fact that her offspring is a murderer, despite all the physical evidence.

One piece of physical evidence trumps a million testimonies to the contrary. Especially second hand witnesses.

The “miracles” are just an urban legend. If one wishes to establish a “miraculous healing” it cannot be done after the fact. Make a prediction, put your money where your mouth is, and let the chips fall where they may. Doctors make erroneous disgnoses all the time, and the fellow doctors are more than willing to participate in a cover-up. Happens all the time.

And this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

What about the multitude of scientists and doctors greater in intellect the the great “one” Hitchens who converted to Christianity after meeting, witnessing, and being these “miracles”? Especially since the Catholic church even by great intellects such as Hitchens (who has also played devils advocate for “miracle” investigations on many occasions and was also a member of the vaticans science institutes(?) ) admitted that the Catholic church does have the most thorough miracle and "unnatural phenomenon " investigative and imperical objective reasoning process. So can thoroughness and objective proof be at fault sir? Or is it because of reason, logic, and rhetoric many intelligent and Pius and non-Pius people are wrong all or nearly all of the time

Shalom
God bless you on you’re journey

 

[Trurl]

Steve80:

This is exactly the point I’m trying to make! Except in reverse with regard to faith. There are (what appears to be) mathematical contradictions one can’t understand without a deeper knowledge of the subject.

There are no mathematical contradictions. Period. If one does not understand a part of mathematics or physics, that does not mean that there is a contradiction - not even an “apparent” contradiction. A “married bachelor” is a contradiction, and no amount of faith can convert it into a “mystery”. But, of course this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

aragonjohn1:

What about the multitude of scientists and doctors greater in intellect the the great “one” Hitchens who converted to Christianity after meeting, witnessing, and being these “miracles”?

How many? List of names? Evidence?

aragonjohn1:

Especially since the Catholic church even by great intellects such as Hitchens (who has also played devils advocate for “miracle” investigations on many occasions and was also a member of the vaticans science institutes(?) ) admitted that the Catholic church does have the most thorough miracle and "unnatural phenomenon " investigative and imperical objective reasoning process. So can thoroughness and objective proof be at fault sir? Or is it because of reason, logic, and rhetoric many intelligent and Pius and non-Pius people are wrong all or nearly all of the time

There is only one group of people who are qualified to investigate paranormal or miraculous events: the stage magicians. How many of those are employed by the Vatican? Doctors, scientists are exactly as gullible to maldirection and genuine mistakes as any other person. Having a high IQ is no protection either. Only the people whose job is to decieve are qualified as investigators. They are trained in deception, they can find the problem with the investigation. The point is that you cannot say: “X came to Lourdes with certain symptoms and now those symptoms are gone” - therefore a miracle occurred. How do you know if the original diagnosis was correct? How do you know that a spontaneous remission did not take place?

But the real point is that there are no control groups, there are no double-blind tests. You can easily collect hundreds and thousands of people who had some very strange dreams, which came true in a few weeks afterwards. (After all billions of people have billions of dreams every night, and as such many are “bound” to come true.) Such “arguments” are brought up that there is “something” to precognition. But it is not enough to have a few positive outcomes, even to have tens of thousands of positive outcomes (and Lourdes has a few dozens…)! You would need to collect all the 4 groups, and count how many people are in them.

Group #1 : those who came to Lourdes and were “miraculously” healed.
Group #2 : those who came to Lourdes and were NOT “miraculously” healed.
Group #3 : those who did not come to Lourdes and were “miraculously” healed.
Group #4 : those who did not come to Lourdes and were NOT “miraculously” healed.

Only if you had these groups identified and enumerated, can you set up a correlation matrix and see if there is a positive correlation between going to Lourdes and experiencing a “miracuolus” healing. That is how mathematical statistics works. Of course it is impossible to find the people in group #3 and #4, so the whole process is bogus.

One more remark. Many people want and crave “miracles”. Here is a true story by James (the Amazing) Randi, a well know stage magician, and a trained investigator of “miracles”. He was called to a small village where a young girl could read the Bible with her fingertips, while being blidfolded. There was a lot of hoopla about a “genuine miracle”. It took only a few minutes to discover the fraud. Her blindfold allowed her to look down next to her nose (it is very hard to cover that little “tunnel”) and she read the text just fine - the ordinary way. So far no big deal, just another fraud exposed. The strange thing happened when the mother of the girl weapt and cried and asked Randi: “why did you expose her? Don’t you believe in God?” You see, a huge percentage of people is dissatisfied with the idea, that this is “all there is”, they crave something more, and so they are willing participants in their own deception. As I said, education, or IQ or college degree has nothing to do with it.

Now can we get back to the topic?

 

[aragonjohn1]

There are no mathematical contradictions. Period. If one does not understand a part of mathematics or physics, that does not mean that there is a contradiction - not even an “apparent” contradiction. A “married bachelor” is a contradiction, and no amount of faith can convert it into a “mystery”. But, of course this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

How many? List of names? Evidence?

There is only one group of people who are qualified to investigate paranormal or miraculous events: the stage magicians. How many of those are employed by the Vatican? Doctors, scientists are exactly as gullible to maldirection and genuine mistakes as a First as I saidfiny other person. Having a high IQ is no protection either. Only the people whose job is to decieve are qualified as investigators. They are trained in deception, they can find the problem with the investigation. The point is that you cannot say: “X came to Lourdes with certain symptoms and now those symptoms are gone” - therefore a miracle occurred. How do you know if the original diagnosis was correct? How do you know that a spontaneous remission did not take place?

But the real point is that there are no control groups, there are no double-blind tests. You can easily collect hundreds and thousands of people who had some very strange dreams, which came true in a few weeks afterwards. (After all billions of people have billions of dreams every night, and as such many are “bound” to come true.) Such “arguments” are brought up that there is “something” to precognition. But it is not enough to have a few positive outcomes, even to have tens of thousands of positive outcomes (and Lourdes has a few dozens…)! You would need to collect all the 4 groups, and count how many people are in them.

Group #1 : those who came to Lourdes and were “miraculously” healed.
Group #2 : those who came to Lourdes and were NOT “miraculously” healed.
Group #3 : those who did not come to Lourdes and were “miraculously” healed.
Group #4 : those who did not come to Lourdes and were NOT “miraculously” healed.

Only if you had these groups identified and enumerated, can you set up a correlation matrix and see if there is a positive correlation between going to Lourdes and experiencing a “miracuolus” healing. That is how mathematical statistics works. Of course it is impossible to find the people in group #3 and #4, so the whole process is bogus.

One more remark. Many people want and crave “miracles”. Here is a true story by James (the Amazing) Randi, a well know stage magician, and a trained investigator of “miracles”. He was called to a small village where a young girl could read the Bible with her fingertips, while being blidfolded. There was a lot of hoopla about a “genuine miracle”. It took only a few minutes to discover the fraud. Her blindfold allowed her to look down next to her nose (it is very hard to cover that little “tunnel”) and she read the text just fine - the ordinary way. So far no big deal, just another fraud exposed. The strange thing happened when the mother of the girl weapt and cried and asked Randi: “why did you expose her? Don’t you believe in God?” You see, a huge percentage of people is dissatisfied with the idea, that this is “all there is”, they crave something more, and so they are willing participants in their own deception. As I said, education, or IQ or college degree has nothing to do with it.

Now can we get back to the topic?

First yes, I stated in an earlier post y’all is still on topic

Second the medical committee at Lourdes Is
Completely independent from the Church and in all in investigations of miracles such is the same.

“The Medical committee at Lourdes is totally independent of the Church. … doctors of the patients and they cannot make decisions without obtaining the medical records of those doctors.”

• doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

-*magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Miracles

Third
Are you as fallible as I
Or do you have knowledge and not wisdom
How do I no if you are one of the people who think one has “magicians eyes” when In fact they visit simple people and are unable to outwit or disprove that person.

 

[Steve80]

There are no mathematical contradictions. Period. If one does not understand a part of mathematics or physics, that does not mean that there is a contradiction - not even an “apparent” contradiction. A “married bachelor” is a contradiction, and no amount of faith can convert it into a “mystery”.

There are no contradictions in God. If one does not understand part of God or faith, that does not mean there is a contradiction - not even “apparent” contradictions. You’ve used the married-bachelor example several times. We don’t even need faith to debunk this contradiction. Both words have multiple meanings. In this case, bachelor means – “a man not married to a woman” and married means – “interconnected or joined; united.” Therefore one could be united to God and a bachelor at the same time. Even now a large portion of the population in the US wants to further modify the definition of marriage! Faith is not limited to the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of words. The Trinity is another contradiction that can be debunked; this one through math.

But, of course this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

It has everything to do with the topic because the answers can be found only in faith. The answers don’t make sense without it. That’s why I made the correlation to math. Just because I don’t understand the answer to a complex equation doesn’t mean the answer itself is not true.

We may not agree on everything, but the one thing we can agree on is that mathematics and black holes are pretty cool! Let me conclude by saying that I do understand many of the points you are trying to make even if we don’t view them the same. You’ve given me a lot to think about and it’s good to be challenged as it helps one grow. At this point, I think we are both beating on a dead horse, you from one side and me from the opposite! No matter our differences in belief, I can tell you are a good person with a good heart. I hope that it leads you back to faith one day, mostly because I know how much good you could do with the passion you have.

 

[aragonjohn1]

First yes, I stated in an earlier post y’all is still on topic

Second the medical committee at Lourdes Is
Completely independent from the Church and in all in investigations of miracles such is the same.

“The Medical committee at Lourdes is totally independent of the Church. … doctors of the patients and they cannot make decisions without obtaining the medical records of those doctors.”

• doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

-*magischristwiki.org/index.php?title=Miracles

Third
Are you as fallible as I
Or do you have knowledge and not wisdom
How do I no if you are one of the people who think one has “magicians eyes” when In fact they visit simple people and are unable to outwit or disprove that person.

Fourth:
Group #1 : those who came to Lourdes and were “miraculously” healed.

-*The Medical committee at Lourdes is totally independent of the Church. They use skeptics on the committees, the rules are geared to control for remission. They screen our remission. They are required to use only the best medical evidence, to consult the doctors of the patients and they cannot make decisions without obtaining the medical records of those doctors. They do examine the patients. It does have to be proven that the people were sick beforehand! they will only choose a case when they cannot find a naturalistic explanation. Therefore objective and empirical evidence is considered.
Group #2 : those who came to Lourdes and were NOT “miraculously” healed.

Atheists will never be satisfied because they are not seeking truth, they are seeking to guard a paradigm. Be that as it may, the evidence for miracles at Lourdes is the finest I the world, and is valid and well documented with the best science has to offer to date. That makes it extraordinary. This furnishes a rational warrant for belief. Meaning, if one chooses to construe it as proof it is not irrational to take it as such.*

Lourdes evidence is the best. The Saintmaking miracles use the same rules and virtually the same committee, they are very exacting and rigorous. But they are not as pressure free as the Lourdes committee. There is some good evidence from the Protestant world, but not much. Protestants never think about documenting miracles. I also include what I call “the anecdotal pile.” I don’t think those cases prove anything, they sources are bad and docs stink, but I include them for the purpose of showing how many people in this world experience amazing things they define as “miracle.” Miracles are going on all the time, and they not often given attention, not reproted and not believed.*

Therefore those who are not healed are almost always healed in a subjective or objective way

Group #3 : those who did not come to Lourdes and were “miraculously” healed.

They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: “Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?” Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. “Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that’s not enough.” says Ensoli. “Exceptional doesn’t mean inexplicable.”*

“Inexplicable,” or inspiegabile, is the happy label that Di Ruberto, the doctors and several other clerics in the Vatican’s “medical conference” give to a case if it survives their scrutiny. It then passes to a panel of theologians, who must determine whether the inexplicable resulted from prayer. If so, the miracle is usually approved by a caucus of Cardinals and the Pope.*

Some find the process all too rigorous. Says Father Paolino Rossi, whose job, in effect, is lobbying for would-be saints from his own Capuchin order: “It’s pretty disappointing when you work for years and years and then see the miracle get rejected.” But others suggest it could be stricter still.*
And many miracles that are unprovable from a subjective standpoint are never considered
The best doctors, et al, in the cases of many other miracles like a lung growing back, fingers restored, minds become sane, the dead rise, and the dumb speak, etc… Have to use this rigorous process.

-*pamphlets.org.au/ireland/ctsidd0360a.html

Group #4 : those who did not come to Lourdes and were NOT “miraculously” healed
You are right people can be healed in other ways but most and not every case is someone who asks or seeks miracles and the transcendent.

-*prolifeblogs.com/topics.php?topic=healings

 

[aragonjohn1]

There are no mathematical contradictions. Period. If one does not understand a part of mathematics or physics, that does not mean that there is a contradiction - not even an “apparent” contradiction. A “married bachelor” is a contradiction, and no amount of faith can convert it into a “mystery”. But, of course this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

How many? List of names? Evidence?

There is only one group of people who are qualified to investigate paranormal or miraculous events: the stage magicians. How many of those are employed by the Vatican? Doctors, scientists are exactly as gullible to maldirection and genuine mistakes as any other person. Having a high IQ is no protection either. Only the people whose job is to decieve are qualified as investigators. They are trained in deception, they can find the problem with the investigation. The point is that you cannot say: “X came to Lourdes with certain symptoms and now those symptoms are gone” - therefore a miracle occurred. How do you know if the original diagnosis was correct? How do you know that a spontaneous remission did not take place?

But the real point is that there are no control groups, there are no double-blind tests. You can easily collect hundreds and thousands of people who had some very strange dreams, which came true in a few weeks afterwards. (After all billions of people have billions of dreams every night, and as such many are “bound” to come true.) Such “arguments” are brought up that there is “something” to precognition. But it is not enough to have a few positive outcomes, even to have tens of thousands of positive outcomes (and Lourdes has a few dozens…)! You would need to collect all the 4 groups, and count how many people are in them.

Group #1 : those who came to Lourdes and were “miraculously” healed.
Group #2 : those who came to Lourdes and were NOT “miraculously” healed.
Group #3 : those who did not come to Lourdes and were “miraculously” healed.
Group #4 : those who did not come to Lourdes and were NOT “miraculously” healed.

Only if you had these groups identified and enumerated, can you set up a correlation matrix and see if there is a positive correlation between going to Lourdes and experiencing a “miracuolus” healing. That is how mathematical statistics works. Of course it is impossible to find the people in group #3 and #4, so the whole process is bogus.

One more remark. Many people want and crave “miracles”. Here is a true story by James (the Amazing) Randi, a well know stage magician, and a trained investigator of “miracles”. He was called to a small village where a young girl could read the Bible with her fingertips, while being blidfolded. There was a lot of hoopla about a “genuine miracle”. It took only a few minutes to discover the fraud. Her blindfold allowed her to look down next to her nose (it is very hard to cover that little “tunnel”) and she read the text just fine - the ordinary way. So far no big deal, just another fraud exposed. The strange thing happened when the mother of the girl weapt and cried and asked Randi: “why did you expose her? Don’t you believe in God?” You see, a huge percentage of people is dissatisfied with the idea, that this is “all there is”, they crave something more, and so they are willing participants in their own deception. As I said, education, or IQ or college degree has nothing to do with it.

Now can we get back to the topic?

What one thinks first is a miracle many times cannot be but if you really try objectively to explore a real miracle than you know it is a real miracle ( unless you are one the handful of people on this earth who are blinder than I was)

Shalom

 

[Trurl]

Steve80:

We may not agree on everything, but the one thing we can agree on is that mathematics and black holes are pretty cool! Let me conclude by saying that I do understand many of the points you are trying to make even if we don’t view them the same. You’ve given me a lot to think about and it’s good to be challenged as it helps one grow. At this point, I think we are both beating on a dead horse, you from one side and me from the opposite! No matter our differences in belief, I can tell you are a good person with a good heart. I hope that it leads you back to faith one day, mostly because I know how much good you could do with the passion you have.

Very kind of you. Thanks for the conversation.
araginjohn1:

The Medical committee at Lourdes is totally independent of the Church. They use skeptics on the committees, the rules are geared to control for remission. They screen our remission. They are required to use only the best medical evidence, to consult the doctors of the patients and they cannot make decisions without obtaining the medical records of those doctors. They do examine the patients. It does have to be proven that the people were sick beforehand! they will only choose a case when they cannot find a naturalistic explanation. Therefore objective and empirical evidence is considered.

I do not doubt any of that at all. I would not accuse them of any impropriety. Where the problem lies is the improper methodolgy. The hypothesis is that Lourdes is a “special place” where there are “miraculous” healings. Looking at it abstractly, there is a hypothesis that there is a correlation between two events, let’s call them “A” and “B”. “A” could be the dreams of a person, and “B” could be that the dream came true. Or “A” could be administering a new drug, and “B” could be the positive effect of that drug. (And this is a very real scenario, which is employed all the time.) The peculiarities don’t matter.

In every case the correct procedure is to set up a “test group” and a “control group”. Only the chief examiner can know who is in each group, neither the participants, nor the other personnel is given that information - and this is not because people cannot be trusted, rather because that information would skew the results. Let’s translate it into the Lourdes scenario. You select - say - ten thousand people, who all suffer some kind of medical problem. You divide them into a test group (5000 people) who will go to Lourdes, and a control group (also 5000 people), who will be sent to a “look-alike” of Lourdes - but neither group is told where they were sent. After a suitable time the doctors will examine both groups, and report how many “extraordinary” healings happened in each group. Now you could set up a correlation matrix and examine the result. I can predict that there will be no special correlation.

This is the ONE and ONLY methodology that can be trusted. As a matter of fact, such experiments have been set up several times to examine the efficacy of intercessory or supplicatory prayers. Needless to say, there was no discernable difference. As we all know, prayers no not work. For the skeptics it is obvious, since there is no God up there, for the believers it is also obvious, since they believe that God is skewing the results, lest he could be tested. (Why do they worship a cheater, is beyond me )

The point is that you cannot select the “positive” results, and declare that there is “something special” going on. (Millions of people visit Lourdes evey year, and there are what? 60 unexplained cases?) That is not the way experiments are conducted. By the way, the James Randi Foundation has a million dollar reward for anyone, who can demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural or paranormal, under properly controlled, double-blind circumstances. Also needless to say that there are very few takers, and so far - no winners.

To sum it up, here is a cute joke. A priest is traveling home after a visit to Lourdes. At the border crossing the officer asks him if he has anything to declare; like tobacco or alcohol? The priest says, there is nothing to declare. The officer sees a suspicious bottle and asks the priest what is in it? The priest says, it is some water from Lourdes. The officer opens it, sniffs and says: “Hey, this is cognac!”. Whereupon the priest exclaimes: “Praise the Lord! A miracle occurred!”. This is the only “miracle” I ever heard of…

 

[tonyrey]

I do not doubt any of that at all. I would not accuse them of any impropriety. Where the problem lies is the improper methodolgy. The hypothesis is that Lourdes is a “special place” where there are “miraculous” healings. Looking at it abstractly, there is a hypothesis that there is a correlation between two events, let’s call them “A” and “B”. “A” could be the dreams of a person, and “B” could be that the dream came true. Or “A” could be administering a new drug, and “B” could be the positive effect of that drug. (And this is a very real scenario, which is employed all the time.) The peculiarities don’t matter.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Very kind of you. Thanks for the conversation.

I do not doubt any of that at all. I would not accuse them of any impropriety. Where the problem lies is the improper methodolgy. The hypothesis is that Lourdes is a “special place” where there are “miraculous” healings. Looking at it abstractly, there is a hypothesis that there is a correlation between two events, let’s call them “A” and “B”. “A” could be the dreams of a person, and “B” could be that the dream came true. Or “A” could be administering a new drug, and “B” could be the positive effect of that drug. (And this is a very real scenario, which is employed all the time.) The peculiarities don’t matter.

In every case the correct procedure is to set up a “test group” and a “control group”. Only the chief examiner can know who is in each group, neither the participants, nor the other personnel is given that information - and this is not because people cannot be trusted, rather because that information would skew the results. Let’s translate it into the Lourdes scenario. You select - say - ten thousand people, who all suffer some kind of medical problem. You divide them into a test group (5000 people) who will go to Lourdes, and a control group (also 5000 people), who will be sent to a “look-alike” of Lourdes - but neither group is told where they were sent. After a suitable time the doctors will examine both groups, and report how many “extraordinary” healings happened in each group. Now you could set up a correlation matrix and examine the result. I can predict that there will be no special correlation.

This is the ONE and ONLY methodology that can be trusted. As a matter of fact, such experiments have been set up several times to examine the efficacy of intercessory or supplicatory prayers. Needless to say, there was no discernable difference. As we all know, prayers no not work. For the skeptics it is obvious, since there is no God up there, for the believers it is also obvious, since they believe that God is skewing the results, lest he could be tested. (Why do they worship a cheater, is beyond me )

The point is that you cannot select the “positive” results, and declare that there is “something special” going on. (Millions of people visit Lourdes evey year, and there are what? 60 unexplained cases?) That is not the way experiments are conducted. By the way, the James Randi Foundation has a million dollar reward for anyone, who can demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural or paranormal, under properly controlled, double-blind circumstances. Also needless to say that there are very few takers, and so far - no winners.

To sum it up, here is a cute joke. A priest is traveling home after a visit to Lourdes. At the border crossing the officer asks him if he has anything to declare; like tobacco or alcohol? The priest says, there is nothing to declare. The officer sees a suspicious bottle and asks the priest what is in it? The priest says, it is some water from Lourdes. The officer opens it, sniffs and says: “Hey, this is cognac!”. Whereupon the priest exclaimes: “Praise the Lord! A miracle occurred!”. This is the only “miracle” I ever heard of…

That is an old joke I like.

Anyways

1. the process they use is different than that and 78%+ more effective in other circumstances eg: science and many non sciences.

Plus each person is an individual and they can choose to believe or not the results are the same. The waters at Lourdes do have some physical properties that are different granted but what is odd is that they are exactly like the waters at a place like Rome Ohio(?) which is currently being investigated by a bishops committee with the aforementioned process in the sources above.

2nd you must be using the paradigm, ideal, or belief I had.
Because you have not been able to comepletly debunk anything as of yet from a scientific or logical standpoint. You either bring in another thing like statistics, but not individuality, rather something like centrism.

3rd thank you for mentioning some objective evidence.

Fourth have you heard of the ten universal principles or not?

Shalom
God bless

 

[Trurl]

1. the process they use is different than that and 78%+ more effective in other circumstances eg: science and many non sciences.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and where did that very specific 78%+ number come from (sounds like the result of a statistical analysis ). The pharmaceutical companies all use the “test-group driven, double blind method” and so do the investigators in every field where there is a stochastic relationship to be established. Of course, if the claim would be that everyone will be healed at Lourdes, that would be a different scenario. But to have 60-ish unexplained healings among the many million people who visit the place every year does not sound very promising. Finally, to have 60 unexplained healings does not point to any “divine intervention”, it only means that we have 60 unexplained healings. Nothing more.

2nd you must be using the paradigm, ideal, or belief I had.
Because you have not been able to comepletly debunk anything as of yet from a scientific or logical standpoint. You either bring in another thing like statistics, but not individuality, rather something like centrism.

Still don’t know what you mean. Did someone’s severed limb ever grow back at Lourdes?

Fourth have you heard of the ten universal principles or not?

Not under this name.

 

[tonyrey]

Did someone’s severed limb ever grow back at Lourdes?

 

[aragonjohn1]

Trurl;9899997:

An old chestnut which demands coercive evidence - which would then be explained away as a hallucination to satisfy a materialist’s preconceived conclusion…

seems possible based on his answers

sadly it seems he doesn’t want to answer hope he is still open to truth:getholy:

but, sadly whatever argument i use he refuses objective and imperical evidence and chucks out window.

Shalom
God Bless