Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[PRmerger]

Why would it be miraculous?

If you don’t think it would be miraculous, then please say so.

No, Bradski.

Read my question again.

I asked you: why would it be miraculous.

Can you please answer that?

(Although, of course, we all know the answer: because something can’t come from nothing.

But I would like to see your answer to this.)

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It means that you understand that…
something can’t come from…
nothing.
So if an arm grows from nothing…it’s proof of a miracle, yeah?
Something can’t come from nothing.

Since Bradski has already pointed out your error…

Although, of course, we all know the answer: because something can’t come from nothing.

… and you keep repeating it, what else is there to say? By the way, atheists do not say that “something comes from nothing”.

Now, to your question about the miraculous healings. If we would discover that a limb spontaneously grew back, that might not be sufficient to declare a “miracle”. It would be astonishing, and worthy of research, but nothing more. If, however, all the amputees who were sent to Lourdes would have their missing limbs regrow, but none of the others would… then that would be a “miracle” of the first class.

Just like the “pie” in the sky in the form of quotes from the Bible. You asked for some examples what would convince skeptics that God is real, and now you have two of them. And as I predicted, someone immediately started to spew the nonsense about losing our free will, if God had introduced such a miracle. Aren’t you surprised?

 

[PRmerger]

Since Bradski has already pointed out your error…

… and you keep repeating it, what else is there to say? By the way, atheists do not say that “something comes from nothing”.

Some do, PA. Some believe the universe caused itself.

But I am heartened to see that you submit to the very logical “something can’t come from nothing.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Some do, PA. Some believe the universe caused itself.

Then they are wrong - not that I have ever seen an atheist who would profess such a nonsense. But I have seen many believers who say this about the atheists - strangely there is no direct quote - ever.

The view of the atheists is that the Universe simply exists. There is nothing outside the Universe, there is no time outside the Universe and there is no causation outside the Universe. Space, time, causation cannot be defined outside the Universe. That is what atheists say, NOT that the universe “caused itself”.

 

[Bradski]

No, Bradski.

Read my question again.

I asked you: why would it be miraculous.

Can you please answer that?

(Although, of course, we all know the answer: because something can’t come from nothing.

But I would like to see your answer to this.)

This is becoming risible. Limbs that regenerate in nature do not come from nothing. They develop from existing cells.

But it is physically and biologically (and literally) impossible for a human to regenerate a missing limb. If a person did so, it would not be natural. It would be supernatural. It would be, in the literal sense of the word, a miracle.

And did you check out the Mary on the roof miracle? Found any evidence?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Spending money trying to investigate claims is a waste?

I already answered this in post #76 and #93… but so far you did not acknowledge them. So a question is in order. Should science investigate claims of “phrenology”, or “palm reading” or “astrology”? Where do you draw the line, if there is a line at all?

 

[PRmerger]

Then they are wrong -

Excellent. A moral absolute you have espoused.

not that I have ever seen an atheist who would profess such a nonsense

Since when is your parochial experience the shibboleth for what atheists profess?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Excellent. A moral absolute you have espoused.

Ever since when is the denial that the universe did not cause itself has anything to do with “moral absolutes”. Huh??

Since when is your parochial experience the shibboleth for what atheists profess?

Well, quote me an atheist who says that the universe “caused itself”. With this exact wording, of course…

 

[PRmerger]

But I have seen many believers who say this about the atheists - strangely there is no direct quote - ever.

Just did a cursory search and came up with this:

google.com/search?q=the+reason+the+universe+exists+is+that+it+caused+itself+to+exist&oq=the+reason+the+universe+exists+is+that+it+caused+itself+to+exist&aqs=chrome…69i57j69i64.15309j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

34, 500,000 results.

One has to wonder at the provinciality of the assertion “no atheist I’ve ever encountered has ever argued this”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Just did a cursory search and came up with this:

google.com/search?q=the+reason+the+universe+exists+is+that+it+caused+itself+to+exist&oq=the+reason+the+universe+exists+is+that+it+caused+itself+to+exist&aqs=chrome…69i57j69i64.15309j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

34, 500,000 results.

One has to wonder at the provinciality of the assertion “no atheist I’ve ever encountered has ever argued this”.

How many of them have you read and understood? I looked at the first one, and the author (Quentin Smith) explicitly said that the phrase “the universe caused itself” DOES NOT mean that “the universe caused itself”. No, I am not going to read 35 million hits.

But I am willing to concede that you can find a bunch of idiots no matter what kind of nonsense you wish to establish by quote-mining.

What about the requirement that science is supposed to investigate astrology, palm reading and other assorted nonsense? Did you retract that assertion of yours? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

 

[PRmerger]

Ever since when is the denial that the universe did not cause itself has anything to do with “moral absolutes”. Huh??

“It is absolutely wrong for a person to state A, B, C, D or X” =

a moral…

absolute.

I knew you believed in them, PA.

Anyone who argues for his position and believes the contrary position is wrong (as you do here) believes in moral absolutes.

Despite their protests of such.

 

[PRmerger]

But I am willing to concede that you can find a bunch of idiots no matter what kind of nonsense you wish to establish by quote-mining.

Excellent.

I am glad that you have been able to expand your exposure to atheistic arguments.

#itsgoodnottoremainsoinsular

 

[PRmerger]

What about the requirement that science is supposed to investigate astrology, palm reading and other assorted nonsense? Did you retract that assertion of yours? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

That would be an unqualified, absolute NO.

Science must investigate all claims.

Back to my example of Alexander Fleming: imagine how unscientific his thinking would have been if he had used your paradigm and simply dismissed food as a source for antibacterial properties.

See?

 

[PRmerger]

If I may, I could paraphrase that and you can tell me if I’m wrong in doing so:

We can’t find a natural cause for this event, therefore it must be supernatural/paranormal.

Is that reasonable?

How about: we can’t find a natural caue for this event, therefore we ought to consider a supernatural cause for this event.

Does that sound reasonable?

Instead, what you have asserted is the circular (and very close-minded AND unscientific): I won’t consider the supernatural because I don’t believe in the supernatural.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I advocate science… which should not be confused with pseudo-science.

Science (real Science, that is) NEVER dismisses any story. It investigates each and every possibility.

Otherwise, what it is is biased.

And Science ought never be biased.

So for any Science Advocate to say: I summarily dismiss that story because of A, B and C is being very…faith based.

 

[PRmerger]

This is becoming risible. Limbs that regenerate in nature do not come from nothing. They develop from existing cells.

But it is physically and biologically (and literally) impossible for a human to regenerate a missing limb. If a person did so, it would not be natural. It would be supernatural. It would be, in the literal sense of the word, a miracle.

Except, as you already stated, it wouldn’t be a miracle because it already happens in nature.

You must acknowledge that were this to occur, there would be a blast of tweets, Facebook messages and memes by atheists crowing, “Oh, yeah. A miracle. Just like this is a miracle. Not.”

youtube.com/watch?v=_rtF_coKT8U

And did you check out the Mary on the roof miracle? Found any evidence?

I am not sure what your point is here? You are referencing the approved Marian apparition in Egypt, but in reference to what, exactly?

My evidence is that I trust in the Catholic Church which has approved it.

Just like your evidence for flying in an aircraft way, way up in the sky without even knowing the name of your pilot is because you trust in the airline which has approved her.

We are the same, you and me.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Anyone who argues for his position and believes the contrary position is wrong (as you do here) believes in moral absolutes.

Despite their protests of such.

Sorry, I have NO idea what you are talking about. And I would appreciate if you stopped “sickoanalyzing” me. (See the novel “Enders Game” for the meaning od “sickoanalizing”)

I am glad that you have been able to expand your exposure to atheistic arguments.

If someone presents an incorrect argument, I will be happy to expose it as such. I am not willing to embrace idiotic atheists as bosom-buddies.

Science must investigate all claims.

If he would have denied it, someone else would have investigated it. What you say is nonsense. Investigate ALL claims is dumb, because it costs time, money and resources - all of which are in short supply. If you wish to waste your resources on investigating long-ago-debunked ideas, that is your prerogative. People who are responsible to allocate resources for investigation of claims are more prudent.

Come back when you investigated the claims of astrologers… and the claims of those who insist that they created a perpetual motion machine.

Science (real Science, that is) NEVER dismisses any story. It investigates each and every possibility.

You are very naïve. How many times should “science” investigate the claims of “kooks”?

 

[Bradski]

Except, as you already stated, it wouldn’t be a miracle because it already happens in nature.

Some animals can live freely at 8,000 meters under water. If a human could do that it would be a miracle.
Some animals can go without water for years. If a human could do that it would be a miracle.
Some animals can withstand up to 1000 Grays of radiation. If a human could do that it would be a miracle.
Some animals can regenerate limbs. If a human could do that it would be a miracle.

Spontaneous remission of cancer is not miraculous. Regeneration of limbs in humans is. Lights on a roof which some people claim to the the Virgin Mary are not miraculous.

I bring Zeitun up because it is relevant to two things. Firstly, your claim about Fatima earlier. With zero evidence apart from people reported as saying what they believed they saw versus what should be the most recorded event in Catholicism.

Secondly, because it compares to this faulty radio episode. Where you say it should have, even must have been investigated.

So…in regard to both those points, let’s have a look at how much evidence we have for the mother of the son of a God making regular appearances for hours at a time for a period of three years having been seen by millions of people. It’s obviously vastly more important than a dodgy piece of electronic equipment - and you say that that should have been investigated, so Mary making regular appearances MUST have been investigated and there MUST be incontrovertible proof of it happening.

Let me know when you find a single one of the tens of thousands of pictures that must have been taken of this event. The we can compare this to Fatima. And see how skepticism fits in with all of this.

 

[tonyrey]

The miracle of Zeitoun. Post 67. Aren’t you reading what I post? Here’s a snippet:

‘This wasn’t just the sun appearing to move about. This wasn’t second hand reports of possible eye witnesses who may have heard something from someone. And this wasn’t a one off. This was the actual mother of the Son of God herself making regular appearances for hours at a time on a church roof in the middle of a town over a period of three years in front of (reported) millions’.

So read that post and then read Post 105 and answer the question there. To whit:

If a message in the sky is a coercive miracle, then Mary appearing before millions for hours at a time over a period of years is not? How do you explain that? Or is it that the miracle probably didn’t occur. Keen to hear your response…

I don’t need, nor did I ask, for a response from God. This was a requirement for the paranormal (or supernatural - take it as you will).

My dear Brad, if a coercive miracle had occurred at Zveitoun **you **would believe it was a miracle, so would the whole world and I would have heard about it - unless there is a diabolical plot to prevent people from hearing about it.

It wasn’t a message in the sky and it wasn’t permanent. End of discussion.

BTW It may well have been a miracle but I haven’t yet read all the details. I’m not a person who rejects miracles because of a preconceived conclusion. For me the existence of everything is a miracle, life is a miracle and so is our power of reason…

 

[tonyrey]

“It is absolutely wrong for a person to state A, B, C, D or X” =

a moral…

absolute.

I knew you believed in them, PA.

Anyone who argues for his position and believes the contrary position is wrong (as you do here) believes in moral absolutes.

Despite their protests of such.

To believe we should try to be reasonable is a fundamental moral decision.