B
buffalo
Guest
Here is just a snippet of how the miracles process is done:
Second Damien miracle passes Vatican’s medical commission
Intelligent Design Book Cracks Bestseller List at Amazon.com Signature in the Cell makes 2009 list of top ten bestselling science books
- Status
Second Damien miracle passes Vatican’s medical commission
W
wanstronian
Guest
All stupid questions.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Because rational people have realised that an improbable event does not equate to a miracle. A miracle is something that is impossible, yet happens. No documented evidence exists for such an event, as far as I’m aware. But feel free to enlighten me!
W
wanstronian
Guest
But your point assumes that such a dimension exists. You are starting with your conclusion and inventing a hypothesis to support it.
I’m sorry, but the church is hardly unbiased when it comes to promoting the existence of miracles. When a miracle is investigated and documented by independent means then we have something to consider. Failing that, we merely have an improbable event that the church is using to reinforce its own existence.
That’s your belief. It is not a proven fact. Do try and keep fact and conjecture separate.
My question was, how does proving his existence to people impact their free will, any more than the proof of any other phenomena affects our free will?
No, he doesn’t - he arguably destroys some cherry-picked statements made by certain authors. In no way at all does he destroy the base atheist position, which is: There is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore I choose not to believe he exists.
Individual atheists can make irrational comments, inferences or mistakes - as can theists. However the underlying rationality of the principle of atheism is inviolate - we do not believe in God for the same reason that you don’t believe in Santa - there is no evidence for his existence. To ‘totally destroy’ that position, you have to do one simple thing: prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that God exists.
W
wanstronian
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission
Hardly a miracle, unless one can show that everybody who’s ever entered remission has prayed, and that everyone who has prayed has entered remission. Otherwise you have a single example of correlation, which has been dressed up as causation.
T
tonyrey
Guest
“stupid” for some one who cannot answer! The inadequacy of materialism is most evident when confronted with the problem of the self. A set of neural events cannot possibly do justice to the richness of personal experience…
W
wanstronian
Guest
No, stupid because they are designed not to clarify but cloud the issue. They’re non-questions unless you deliberately choose not to understand the position with which you disagree. It’s just another manifestation of your underlying inability to debate honestly.
Maybe, but it’s no less adequate than any of the alternatives. Nobody can explain the self.
Well, whaddyaknow? Another bald assertion from Tony “I don’t understand how the answer can be x so I’ll just assert that the answer is an invented y” Rey!!
T
tonyrey
Guest
Further examples of the ad hominem fallacy!
"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
- The personal attack is also often termed an “ad personem argument”: the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor’s character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
- The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of “getting personal.” The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded."
No **materialist **can explain the self…
Yet another argumentum ad hominem! You’re going to break all records at this rate>>>>
How about trying to explain how a set of neural events can do justice to the richness of personal experience? That would be far more to the point…
B
buffalo
Guest
Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/images/euchmn2m.jpg
…In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.
R
ricmat
Guest
But we’ve all heard here that the increasing complexity of life is due exclusively to random mutations, and that it’s a fact. That’s way beyond any doubt at all.I’m sure you think you’ve proved a point. But you’ve neglected the concept of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in your enthusiasm to prove me wrong.
If you want to say that evolution is not a fact, and that there is some doubt, then I guess that we can at least agree on that.
W
wanstronian
Guest
NOBODY can explain the self. If you have evidence that this is not the case, please present it.
Not an ad hominem - just an observation of every single argument you put forward.
As well you know, this hasn’t been discovered. What you continually and persistently demonstrate is your failure to realise that this **doesn’t **mean that an arbitrary supernatural hypothesis must be the answer instead.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Eh?
T
tonyrey
Guest
W
wanstronian
Guest
Well clearly I can’t do that without quoting every single argument you’ve made then pointing out why it’s flawed. However, one of your recent arguments demonstrates adequately:
1. “A set of neural events cannot possibly do justice to the richness of personal experience”
2. “A set of neural events cannot possibly do justice to the richness of personal experience”
3. “A set of neural events cannot possibly do justice to the richness of personal experience”
4. “A set of neural events cannot possibly do justice to the richness of personal experience”
And please don’t bother with the, “prove I’m wrong” gambit - as someone who is supposedly so familiar with fallacious arguments, I’m sure you’re aware that the burden of proof rests with the individual making the assertion.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
You have pointed out yourself that “NOBODY can explain the self”, let alone the **richness of personal experience". **Thank you for underlining it! It really does justice to the truth of my statement…
As for your allegation that I am dogmatic here is a short selection of some of your statements:
Therefore our physical world is our primary datum. **It can be no other way.
** True, the logical outcome is that thoughts are **just events that occur in our brains. We have ZERO evidence that this is not absolutely the case.
** Faced with these two facts, how can you state that our intangible thoughts are the primary reality? **It’s lunacy!
** We **can’t have **knowledge of our reality without our physical existence occurring first.
The abstraction of the mind serves no useful purpose other than for a sense of identity.
- Can you explain how biological machines have rights?*
Granted them by governments.
**
** Consciousness is a real phenomenon. It is constituted of atoms and molecules, but configurations and combinations matter – how is water “wet”?
- Are truth, goodness, justice, freedom, equality, innocence, guilt and responsibility simply transient human concepts?*
They are as transient as humanity. - So you believe you have no power of self-control and no control over your thoughts?*
It’s **the only rational conclusion **in the absence of evidence of any other source of free will.
S
Sair
Guest
I’ll have a go (although I don’t think they’re ‘stupid’, precisely, just misguided).
What these questions demonstrate is the fact that the language we use to describe personal experience is a product of that very same personal experience, which has been interpreted for millennia as meaning that there is a separate essence, a ‘soul’, residing in our bodies that does all our thinking and emoting, and is the seat of our consciousness.
When you ask, “in what part of the brain do you reside?”, all you are really doing is demonstrating the inadequacy of our language to represent the integrated whole of the human person - you’re still operating implicitly from a belief in mind-body or soul-body dualism. So, essentially you’re asking the materialist to explain something that to them, doesn’t exist.
T
tonyrey
Guest
S
Sair
Guest
S
snafu
Guest
Concerning the miracle reports: the submarine, the Hawaiian missionary, the Boston deacon.
It’s all very well claiming the Vatican researches every case exhaustively. The problem is that I don’t get to see the evidence. For example, where are the MRI scans before and after that chap’s back condition resolved? What surgical interventions were done along the way? Where are all the notes?
I certainly wouldn’t mind stumping up a bit of cash to get some independent medical expertise look at them, and I imagine a lot of non-theists would join me.
Sure, they’re confidential. But why on earth wouldn’t the patient be voluntarily releasing them, if they supply such good evidence? It would surely save some souls, wouldn’t it?
I understand the person in question is in his 70s. With the greatest of respect to him, after he’s passed away, is there any chance his family might publish the relevant details?
It’s all very well claiming the Vatican researches every case exhaustively. The problem is that I don’t get to see the evidence. For example, where are the MRI scans before and after that chap’s back condition resolved? What surgical interventions were done along the way? Where are all the notes?
I certainly wouldn’t mind stumping up a bit of cash to get some independent medical expertise look at them, and I imagine a lot of non-theists would join me.
Sure, they’re confidential. But why on earth wouldn’t the patient be voluntarily releasing them, if they supply such good evidence? It would surely save some souls, wouldn’t it?
I understand the person in question is in his 70s. With the greatest of respect to him, after he’s passed away, is there any chance his family might publish the relevant details?
- Status