The recurring question without an answer

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

I want to know which ones you use that are only from jesus. There must be lots

Look at his predictions of his death and resurrection. Those are clearly ones that are solely from him.

You bet! Ill do that tonight. But you said you were using jesus arguments against the other guy. A prediction isnt an argument!! I though youd be able to tell me about morals and things that jesus said first. Like nobody else said before him. Not things that hes just repeating.

 

[Gorgias]

you said you were using jesus arguments against the other guy

“Aruments against the other guy”? Sorry… I’m not following you. Can you help me understand what you mean?

I though youd be able to tell me about morals and things that jesus said first.

So… two thoughts:

• truth is truth. whether or not Jesus says it “first” (at least, in the context of recorded history), Catholics would assert that all truth comes from God. So… when Jesus says it, it’s true.
• If someone recognized it first, then that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t true then or that it wasn’t part of God’s truth at that point.

 

[macska]

[Miracle at Lourdes itnessed by atheist Nobel-winning doctor](http://library : Two Lourdes Miracles and a Nobel Laureate: What …)

That is not the way the cookie crumbles. I could explain in detail, if you are interested.

Yes. Are you familiar with the impossibility of predicting transcendental events with empirical processes?

Except the results of those processes all happen in THIS physical reality. And as such they are predictable. The causative agent is assumed to be “transcendental”, but the prediction refers to physical events. How many times does this need to be repeated, before you understand it?

I get that. And, my response is: if your predictions have 0% chance of successfully anticipating anything, then a 100% correct prediction rate of “no success” prove absolutely nothing …!

My prediction comes true 100% of the time. It proves that YOUR hypothesis was wrong. An incorrect hypothesis is refuted and that is all.

I agree. Since you have no reasonable answer, any attempt to engage is fruitless.

No… it is YOU who cannot provide an epistemological method! YOU, not I. The fact that I am not interested in helping you out only means one thing: “that I am not interested”.

 

[Gorgias]

Except the results of those processes all happen in THIS physical reality. And as such they are predictable.

Ahh… hung on your own petard, now. Ok, then: I challenge you to predict when they’re going to happen! If you are unable to do so, then you cannot castigate others for likewise being unable to do so… and subsequently, you cannot use their failure as ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’ (choose your favorite term) of the non-existence of God. So… go ahead. Show me your process for prediction. I’ll wait.

How many times does this need to be repeated, before you understand it?

As many times as it takes until you understand the futility and illogic of your assertion.

My prediction comes true 100% of the time. It proves that YOUR hypothesis was wrong.

I can predict that you will contradict me 100% of the time. Does that prove that your assertions are correct? (Hint: nope.)

The fact that I am not interested in helping you out only means one thing: “that I am not interested”.

Of course it does.

 

[Annie]

That is not the way the cookie crumbles. I could explain in detail, if you are interested.

Oh, I am sure you think you could explain away anything. I just thought that a Nobel-prize winning atheist surgeon’s opinion might make a slight impression on you.

And the Eucharistic miracles, I watched a very long set of YouTube videos about the scientific studies on the first listed, and it was very comprehensive and thorough, as well as having been conducted by another atheist doctor (at the request of his mother).

[I am also very impressed by the fact that any blood types discovered are all the same AB type, one of the rarer types.)

Both these men, way more intelligent than I, ended up returning to belief in God and the Catholic Faith.

Think about it…

 

[macska]

Ok, then: I challenge you to predict when they’re going to happen! If you are unable to do so, then you cannot castigate others for likewise being unable to do so…

When will WHAT happen? I can predict with 100% assurance that no “miracle” pertaining to some non-trivial physical event attributed to some non-physical causative agent will come true.

By the way that does not “prove” God’s nonexistence.

I can predict that you will contradict me 100% of the time.

No. As soon as you start to behave rationally, I will happily agree with you. When will it happen (if at all), I have no idea, and I am not about posit a hypothesis.

 

[macska]

Oh, I am sure you think you could explain away anything.

Explain away? How “charitable”.

I just thought that a Nobel-prize winning atheist surgeon’s opinion might make a slight impression on you.

It does not. Any “miracle” at Lourdes or anywhere else WOULD be impressive if the event would be non-trivial and it would be predicted. So bring a hundred amputees to Lourdes, and predict how many will have their missing leg regrown.

My prediction is “ZERO”. It will not happen. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[Barnesy]

Barnesy:

you said you were using jesus arguments against the other guy

“Aruments against the other guy”? Sorry… I’m not following you. Can you help me understand what you mean?

I though youd be able to tell me about morals and things that jesus said first.

So… two thoughts:

• truth is truth. whether or not Jesus says it “first” (at least, in the context of recorded history), Catholics would assert that all truth comes from God. So… when Jesus says it, it’s true.
• If someone recognized it first, then that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t true then or that it wasn’t part of God’s truth at that point.

You made me go all the way back! And ive worked out the quote thing. So this was it.

macska:

My arguments are not just “ mine ”.

Here’s a clue-by-four: they’re not even yours. They’re of those people who have come before you. You just accepted them and think they’re true.

(And just so that you don’t accuse me of being unfair: neither are mine. But, mine come from Jesus. So… let’s talk about the relative value of the conflicting arguments…? )

So you told the other guy that his arguments werent his but were from other people but you used what jesus said. And i thought great! I can use them as well! But now you said that people knew what he said before because other people had said it already so it wasnt jesus idea. So were you using jesus arguments or other peoples that came before him???

 

[Annie]

Any “miracle” at Lourdes or anywhere else WOULD be impressive if the event would be non-trivial and it would be predicted

Oh, someone brought back from the brink of death is trivial?

It has been observed that miracles occur at Lourdes. Therefore they are now predicted they will occur there. They continue to occur. They are thoroughly investigated by experts the appropriate fields.

We cannot predict which patients will be miraculously healed because it is a Person doing the healing. Just as any scientist cannot predict which tadpoles will become frogs and which will be eaten, just as meteorologists are said to be able to predict climate change more accurately than individual instances of the weather, so at Lourdes only general predictions can be made.

 

[macska]

Oh, someone brought back from the brink of death is trivial?

Any evidence for that? By the way, there is no such thing as the “brink” of death.

It has been observed that miracles occur at Lourdes.

No. Only alleged miracles.

They are thoroughly investigated by experts the appropriate fields.

What experts? There is only ONE kind of expert who is qualified to investigate “miracles”. The experts of misdirection - the STAGE MAGICIANS. They are the only ones who are trained to see through flimm-flamm - which is not necessarily an intended one.

The only way to do this would be:

1. come to the place (say Lourdes) with a properly diagnosed problem - which cannot be mis-diagnosed - for example an amputated leg. No alleged “cancer” or “aneurysm” or anything of this kind. Something that cannot be misdiagnosed - even by a layman.
2. after a certain - pre-determined time, let’s examine if the problem went away. It is important NOT to allow some open-ended investigation. Of course any and all healing procedure is allowed… all the way to “praying”.
3. if the problem disappeared (a limb has re-grown) then we have an example of something unexplained.
4. but that does not mean that we have a “miracle”, only something that we don’t have an explanation for.

Of course, this is the time to offer a bet. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, and willing to bet that nothing will happen. What about you?

… at Lourdes only general predictions can be made.

OK. I am game. Can you predict the percentage of spontaneous limb re-growth, even if you cannot predict which particular patient will benefit? Gorgias tried to argue that without the precise prediction, the process is useless. You are miles better than he is. I would be happy to see a stochastic prediction, which has a certain probability to come true.

I hope I did not waste my time to give you this explanation.

 

[Annie]

So you don’t like the miracles at Lourdes… what about the Eucharistic miracles? Did you read about them?

ETA: I was riveted by the video about the first one mentioned at my link, but it is over an hour long and subtitled, so I thought it might be too long to suggest.

 

[Barnesy]

macska:

Any “miracle” at Lourdes or anywhere else WOULD be impressive if the event would be non-trivial and it would be predicted

Oh, someone brought back from the brink of death is trivial?

It has been observed that miracles occur at Lourdes. Therefore they are now predicted they will occur there. They continue to occur. They are thoroughly investigated by experts the appropriate fields.

We cannot predict which patients will be miraculously healed because it is a Person doing the healing. Just as any scientist cannot predict which tadpoles will become frogs and which will be eaten, just as meteorologists are said to be able to predict climate change more accurately than individual instances of the weather, so at Lourdes only general predictions can be made.

But if i lost my leg in an accident would it be waste of time going to lourdes?

 

[Annie]

I do not think there have been any regenerations of limbs at Lourdes, no. And not everyone who goes to Lourdes gets better or even improves, as macska loves to point out.

But going to Lourdes would be a sign of faith, and people who lose a limb experience other problems such as phantom pain, and going to Lourdes might help with that.

 

[Barnesy]

I do not think there have been any regenerations of limbs at Lourdes, no. And not everyone who goes to Lourdes gets better or even improves, as macska loves to point out.

But going to Lourdes would be a sign of faith, and people who lose a limb experience other problems such as phantom pain, and going to Lourdes might help with that.

So why dont legs and arms get better? That would be a miracle and you say miracles happen there. Lots of people get better all over the world and not just in lourds. If lots and lots of people go there then some are going to get better anyway. Maybe theyd get better if they stayed at home. But if someones arm grows back then someody couldnt say it wasnt a miracle.

 

[Annie]

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

 

[Barnesy]

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

I dont need to know how old you are to ask you questions. You dont need to know how old i am to answer them.

So why dont arms and legs get better at lourdes. Im asking politely.

 

[Annie]

Sorry, didn’t mean to intrude. You just reminded me of someone.

Anyway, I do not know why God does not regenerate limbs. My own theory is that God gives us just enough so that it is reasonable to believe in Him, but not so much that we must believe in Him. This is so we can freely choose our path: with Him? Or not?

If He were to regenerate limbs, we would not have as much of a choice.

 

[Barnesy]

Sorry, didn’t mean to intrude. You just reminded me of someone.

Anyway, I do not know why God does not regenerate limbs. My own theory is that God gives us just enough so that it is reasonable to believe in Him, but not so much that we must believe in Him. This is so we can freely choose our path: with Him? Or not?

If He were to regenerate limbs, we would not have as much of a choice.

I just thought it was funny. You were telling some one look at all these miracles. There must be a god. Then you say we cant have too many. So if my mother has cancer we can tell her that god might cure her and we can pray and we can say thats proof of god if she gets better. But if my dad needs a new arm we have to tell him that he wont do that because thats to much proof!

Is that how it works??

 

[Annie]

Remember that what I explained is only my personal theory. There is a very good chance that I am wrong. God is a lot bigger than I am, so His being is more than I can understand.

In any situation, the Church teaches us to pray “Thy will, not mine, be done,” which brings us back to the beginning of the conversation between macska and Gorgias.

 

[Barnesy]

Remember that what I explained is only my personal theory. There is a very good chance that I am wrong. God is a lot bigger than I am, so His being is more than I can understand.

In any situation, the Church teaches us to pray “Thy will, not mine, be done,” which brings us back to the beginning of the conversation between macska and Gorgias.

I think i understand. What you meant to say was that all the people in lordes ‘might’ be a sign that god is doing miracles but we dont know because there are some people he doesnt cure. And we dont want to know for sure. We just want to think it might be him because if we did know then we definitely wouldnt have any doubt.

So some doubt is ok??

The church doesnt have any doubt. They say the miracles are definitely by god. They checked. They had experts.