What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[MPat]

Do you really wish to assert that **anyone **and **everyone **who wishes to visit Lourdes will be subject to a very rigorous medical exam by a team of experts? And all the paperwork is preserved just in case a “miraculous” healing might occur? If that would be the case then you are already halfway though to set up the necessary protocol to verify that there is a significant positive correlation between the place and the “miraculous” healings. Go for it, and come back when there is a strong statistical evidence. Until then all you have is a bunch of unsupported anecdotes.

Sure looks like that none of you is familiar with the proper protocol to investigate claims of this kind.

But the claim is not that “there is a significant positive correlation between the place and the ‘miraculous’ healings”. The claim is that this specific healing is miraculous. Or, more precisely, that we have no serious competing explanation that fits. And the method used in Lourdes is exactly the method that can check things like that. That is, we have to check all serious competing explanations that we are aware of and show that they do not fit the facts.

Sure looks like that none of you is familiar with the proper protocol to investigate claims of this kind.

As you can see, you didn’t get that “kind” right… But seriously: couldn’t you be a somewhat more pleasant opponent? You do not motivate people to discuss things with you when you belittle them (without even getting things right) and do not discuss when things become more hard and interesting (claiming that the thread went off track or otherwise)… I don’t know if that’s deliberate, but it demotivates just as much anyway…

 

[Peter_Plato]

As you can see, you didn’t get that “kind” right… But seriously: couldn’t you be a somewhat more pleasant opponent? You do not motivate people to discuss things with you when you belittle them (without even getting things right) and do not discuss when things become more hard and interesting (claiming that the thread went off track or otherwise)… I don’t know if that’s deliberate, but it demotivates just as much anyway…

To be fair, Hee_Zen has put up with a lot in this thread. He’s taken his share of lumps - probably more than he’s dished.

Personally, I admire his persistence, his willingness to have his points challenged and that he is thoughtful on most of his posts.

Sure, he’s mistaken in holding to atheism, but he wouldn’t be here for as long as he has if, deep down, he wasn’t looking for a mind changing experience.

**Hey, Hee_Zen! Have a great Christmas with all your loved ones! **

God be with you and may you find his peace!

You, too, MPat, Al, Tony, Charlemagne and everyone else who have participated in this thread!

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17306

 

[Bradski]

Since I have never encountered a supernatural event myself, I did not have the chance to apply the scientific method to it. At some point I might be convinced that from a scientific point of view there is no explanation, and that, on a personal level of judging the evidence – not on a scientific one, because I would have found that it lies outside what science can explain – I would be forced to believe that it was supernatural.

When you say that from a scientific point of view there is no explanation, don’t you mean that from your current understanding of the science at the time there is no explanation?

You could be speaking a couple of thousand years ago and you most definitely would be convinced that, from a scientific point of view, there was no explanation for an eclipse (or bring it more up to date with something that you didn’t know a few years back).

At what point do you say to yourself: there will be no natural answer, therefore I believe it to be supernatural?

 

[Hee_Zen]

But the claim is not that “there is a significant positive correlation between the place and the ‘miraculous’ healings”.

Actually it is both. It is asserted that at Lourdes there are more inexplicable healings than at other places. Kind of like the “Bermuda triangle” which was claimed to be more deadly then other places in the ocean. When the frequency analysis was performed, it turned out that there are somewhat fewer accidents there than would be expected.

The claim is that this specific healing is miraculous. Or, more precisely, that we have no serious competing explanation that fits. And the method used in Lourdes is exactly the method that can check things like that. That is, we have to check all serious competing explanations that we are aware of and show that they do not fit the facts.

Sorry, but that is exactly what is wrong. You cannot start “from behind”. You need to make a prediction, and see if it will be borne out by the facts. The no “competing explanation” is nonsense. From the fact that there are a handful of cases without competing explanations it does not follow that the “alternate” non-explanation: “it was a miracle” gains credence. That is just bogus “science”. The correct approach is to admit ignorance, and keep digging. And I have to notice that none of the alleged miracles were of the type which would be truly mindboggling, like a regrown limb.

There are other claims of the same kind. Claims that some people performed supplicatory prayers, and they brought along inexplicable healings. Dozens and hundreds of such claims. Another perfect candidate for statistical analysis. Just set up a proper, double blind experiment and see if there is “something” to such claims. When these experiments were actually performed the result was always negative. And then came the usual disclaimer: “you cannot test God”. If God sees that you desire to “unmask” him, he will skew the experiment to stay hidden. I see these attempts to wiggle out as highly “disrespectful” to God, to portray God as a petty crook, who cooks the books to escape detection.

But seriously: couldn’t you be a somewhat more pleasant opponent?

I am a very “kind” opponent when I am treated decently. It is one of my basic principles (which you wanted to discuss) that one should never start a fight. I always wait for the other party to land the “first punch” (literal or allegorical). And even then I wait to see if it was a misunderstanding on my part. But when the hostile posts become too frequent, then I will reply in kind. Especially if I keep explaining something and the other party does not understand, but keeps on repeating the same error. And before anyone asks, I will NOT go back and dig out the relevant posts. I offer a better approach. Start treating me decently, and I will be nice. Or, let me offer the olive branch. I will not belittle people any more. When I cannot stand the nonsense any more, I will withdraw… just like I withdrew from the “morality” derailment of this thread. Of course Al Moritz immediately accused me of being “scared” - as if he had access to my internal processes. In the case of such treatment all bets are off.

After all it is Christmas, and kindness should be the “norm”. (Why can’t it be the norm on all the other days of the year? ) Ah, because it would not be Christmas any more. As an old friend of mine once said: “if every day is Christmas, then there is no Christmas”.

Best wishes! Not just to you personally but to all of you.

 

[Aloysium]

When you say that from a scientific point of view there is no explanation, don’t you mean that from your current understanding of the science at the time there is no explanation? . . .

This may point to a fundamental difference in the way you and I view the world. The more I learn, the greater the mystery. Each explanation demands more.

Let’s take this moment.
To explain it in the minimalest fashion requires my accessing everything I know about everything.
But, I am going to try to keep this brief.

You are reading these words.
As I address this fact, your experience changes.
You may focus on your internal understanding, the words on the screen and/or some other aspect of the physical/mental/spiritual reality which is this rather one-sided communication.
If I mention that you are seated, your focus will be on the pressure the chair is exerting on your butt.

There is a shift in experiences which we can call gestalts (because that is what they are called). These are psychological phenomena.

These words and the ideas they are trying to convey are being comprehended in some manner or another. Since we are physical beings, these are neurological events.
We can understand the shifts in attention we were experiencing as involving the totality of the brain and particular structures including the thalamus, the anterior cingulate, the prefrontal cortex, and let us not forget, the cerebellum.
Variations in the functioning of these areas of the brain can correspond to deficiencies in attention.

There is one person, and that person can be described according to his mental or physical structure.

We could go further in our imagination with this dissection of physical reality, proceeding from the concept of the brain as being a biological matrix more complex than the rest of the universe, and consider it as a biochemical event involving the much acclaimed DNA, RNA, proteins such as serotonin and dopamine, processes like the Krebs cycle and so forth.

We haven’t spoken at all about about the technology, the physical nature of the monitor, of light, all that physically is involved in the relationship we are having as participants within the physical universe.
Just scratching the surface, with this quick overview, you should be getting the sense that this is getting weirder and weirder.
I am talking about our just sitting here, trying to communicate. It is utterly, totally, FREAKING AMAZING!!!

And, what of our just sitting here. We can elicit a mental image of this location within the context of the whole, using the GPS of the point of reference that is our self, which is always “here”.
When is this? Clearly it is now, undeniably. How big would you say is this now. Let’s pull out a stop watch and measure. Click. Hmm, still now. The hand is moving around while the now just seems to be. Time is passing. I look at what I’ve written, you look at what you’ve read. Things are definitely changing for sure. I could say that this moment started when I thought about it, but clearly that’s where I seem to be all the time. In fact when I fear death, I fear losing the moment. I, as a physical body, am in time and time will swallow it all up. But now, I am outside time.

The moment is not so much a “what” as it is a “who”.
And, this who exists as part of and in relation to all else that is.
And, all that is, exists in relation to He who is Relationally, who is Love, who is in all things as their Creator.

If you want to know Him all you have to do is ask.
Be prepared that it will be a difficult process as all that is keeping you from Him will have to be burned away.
If you have been waiting, that is what the waiting is all about.

 

[Hee_Zen]

**Hey, Hee_Zen! Have a great Christmas with all your loved ones! **

And the same to you and everyone else.

Now, I would not be me, if I did not offer a small “extra”. Let everyone start to pray for peace on Earth and goodwill among all men. Let us all ask God to intervene and touch the “heart” of the evil ones so they will see the error of their ways. After all, who needs murders, rapes, tortures and wars? We all would be all better off with the natural disasters, famine, floods, meteor strikes and the like. We could still exercise love and caring in treating the victims of such disasters.

And even though I offer this with little “tongue-in-cheek” (but without malice!) I am still serious.

 

[Al_Moritz]

When I cannot stand the nonsense any more, I will withdraw… just like I withdrew from the “morality” derailment of this thread. Of course Al Moritz immediately accused me of being “scared” - as if he had access to my internal processes. In the case of such treatment all bets are off.

Again, you are free to simply prove me wrong by giving substantial answers to the posts that I cited. There is nothing to prevent you from doing so, no?

 

[Peter_Plato]

And the same to you and everyone else.

Now, I would not be me, if I did not offer a small “extra”. Let everyone start to pray for peace on Earth and goodwill among all men. Let us all ask God to intervene and touch the “heart” of the evil ones so they will see the error of their ways. After all, who needs murders, rapes, tortures and wars? We all would be all better off with the natural disasters, famine, floods, meteor strikes and the like. We could still exercise love and caring in treating the victims of such disasters.

And even though I offer this with little “tongue-in-cheek” (but without malice!) I am still serious.

I have no doubt about that AND it isn’t because I’ve used the scientific method to determine it!

 

[Hee_Zen]

I have no doubt about that AND it isn’t because I’ve used the scientific method to determine it!

So you simply accepted my word for it - and there is nothing wrong with it - in principle. Now let me offer you two more unsubstantiated claims:

1. I bought a 10 week lottery ticket (for Powerball), and I did not win anything at all.
2. I bought 10 Powerball lottery tickets, one for each consecutive week, and even though I did not win the jackpot, I did win next best result, I hit the five “normal” numbers every week and won about 10 million dollars.

Do you accept either one of these unsubstantiated claims? And why?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you simply accepted my word for it - and there is nothing wrong with it - in principle. Now let me offer you two more unsubstantiated claims:

1. I bought a 10 week lottery ticket (for Powerball), and I did not win anything at all.
2. I bought 10 Powerball lottery tickets, one for each consecutive week, and even though I did not win the jackpot, I did win next best result, I hit the five “normal” numbers every week and won about 10 million dollars.

Do you accept either one of these unsubstantiated claims? And why?

Hee_Zen, I would look you straight in the eye and ask you a direct question, such as “Did you win 10 million dollars?”

That is usually enough to tell me whether such claims are true or not without resorting to the scientific method.

Now if you were a practiced liar, then a forensic analysis of your bank accounts and daily activities would provide appropriate corroborating evidence.

Notice, however, that there is a presumption on my part that as a human being you are being trustworthy concerning your claims.

That “trust” you are not according to those who claim to have been miraculously healed. You have a presumption of deceit with regards to their claims, one that seems grounded on a kind of built-in animus with regard to the supernatural. I just don’t share that presumption nor the animus, which is another way of saying I am neutral and presume they have no reason to be lying, just as I have no reason to assume you are when you wished glad tidings and peace on earth to everyone.

 

[tonyrey]

And the same to you and everyone else.

Now, I would not be me, if I did not offer a small “extra”. Let everyone start to pray for peace on Earth and goodwill among all men. Let us all ask God to intervene and touch the “heart” of the evil ones so they will see the error of their ways. After all, who needs murders, rapes, tortures and wars? We all would be all better off with the natural disasters, famine, floods, meteor strikes and the like. We could still exercise love and caring in treating the victims of such disasters.

And even though I offer this with little “tongue-in-cheek” (but without malice!) I am still serious.

We would all certainly be better off without natural disasters but can you provide a feasible blueprint of a planet without them - or cite a source of relevant information? If not why not? Could it be just an excuse for rejecting Design?

If that is the strongest argument for scepticism I’m delighted not to be an unscientific sceptic! On that positive note I wish you and everyone participating in this thread - including silent observers - a joyful, peaceful Christmas.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Hee_Zen, I would look you straight in the eye and ask you a direct question, such as “Did you win 10 million dollars?”

That is usually enough to tell me whether such claims are true or not without resorting to the scientific method.

Now if you were a practiced liar, then a forensic analysis of your bank accounts and daily activities would provide appropriate corroborating evidence.

Notice, however, that there is a presumption on my part that as a human being you are being trustworthy concerning your claims.

That “trust” you are not according to those who claim to have been miraculously healed. You have a presumption of deceit with regards to their claims, one that seems grounded on a kind of built-in animus with regard to the supernatural. I just don’t share that presumption nor the animus, which is another way of saying I am neutral and presume they have no reason to be lying, just as I have no reason to assume you are when you wished glad tidings and peace on earth to everyone.

Very interesting reply. Without any intention to be inappropriate about it, I have to point out that you did not actually answer the two questions I presented. If you would have asked me these two questions, my replies would have been:

1. Yes, I believe that you did not win. Such a claim is very mundane, and there is no reason to “lie” about it.
2. No, I don’t believe this claim. It is not theoretically impossible to hit the 5 numbers on the Powerball, after all its probability is one in 5,006,386. But to win 10 **consecutive **times is so unlikely that I would be willing to bet my life against it.

Now let me get back to your actual reply. It is very interesting that you started with “looking me in the eye”. You do not have the option to do so, you must rely on what I said. No additional information is available to you. But the fact that you **wish **to gain additional information is what makes your reply so interesting. And then you say that the analysis of my bank account would reveal if I “lied” or not. So you would wish to rely on **additional, objective **information to render your verdict! My word is no longer sufficient. In other words you would wish to verify if my claim is truthful or not. And the principle of verification is the cornerstone of the scientific method! There is no need to use scales or a litmus test in order to be scientific.

As soon as you look for supporting information, you use the scientific method.

To be trustworthy is fine, but it should not be unconditional. That would be “gullibility”. The first line of “defense” is to evaluate the probability of the claim. You would not believe me if I claimed that I have the Brooklyn bridge for sale for the paltry sum of a ten thousand dollars, would you? Why? Because it sounds “fishy”.

No, I do not trust claims of the miraculous healings. But there is no “animus” involved. I do not trust any outlandish claims without corroborating evidence. And I need to correct your wording - just a little. When I say that I reject those claims, it does not mean that I accuse the claimants of “deliberate lying”. Those people can simply be mistaken. I am familiar with the oft-repeated saying: “liar, lunatic or lord”. Those who say this present a false dilemma: the miss the fourth possibility: “legend”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

When you say that from a scientific point of view there is no explanation, don’t you mean that from your current understanding of the science at the time there is no explanation?

You could be speaking a couple of thousand years ago and you most definitely would be convinced that, from a scientific point of view, there was no explanation for an eclipse (or bring it more up to date with something that you didn’t know a few years back).

At what point do you say to yourself: there will be no natural answer, therefore I believe it to be supernatural?

That depends on the phenomenon observed. But let’s take a walk on water, for example. Let’s say some allegedly holy person would allegedly repeat Jesus’ reported miracle and walk on a lake. I might look for natural explanations, like a hidden platform underneath the water, or a noise-less helicopter flying far overhead with an invisible rope holding the person just at water level (this might make the impression of walking a bit difficult though). Or I would ask myself if that was an optical illusion and the person was simply walking on the shore instead of on the water, or something like that. Or perhaps I would look for some other natural explanation that I can’t think of right now. But if all that turned up empty? It would depend on what I actually saw, and how convincing it seemed. I could not say how I would judge such a particular event before having seen and investigated myself. But all that is a hypothetical of course, I don’t expect to ever witness such a thing.

More broadly, I do not believe in the existence of God because of miracles, supernatural events that would defy or suspend the laws of nature. I have other reasons to do so. Rather, I believe in miracles, at least the ones of the Bible, because I believe in God. Miracles for me are at best supporting evidence. Could a miracle, or something that I would see as an unmistakable sign from God, if it happened to me personally, become the main evidence for me? Possibly, but I could only tell once that happens and I don’t expect it to happen to me.

My reasons for assuming the existence of God are metaphysical ones, from principle, not from events. These include the classical cosmological arguments, the Argument from Reason about the human mind, and the cosmological fine-tuning argument.

As I point out in my article, none of the naturalistic arguments for fine-tuning hold up to scrutiny, and there is nothing in potential future scientific progress around these issues that could in principle give additional strength to these naturalistic arguments or invalidate the counter-arguments to them. That holds for the other arguments for God’s existence that I mentioned as well – they are not in danger of being overturned by future scientific knowledge. None of them are “God-of-the-Gaps” arguments, while on the other hand biological Intelligent Design is in grave danger of being just that.

Certainly, there are no absolute proofs like a mathematical proof could be, rather, the strength of the arguments hinges on perceived plausibility. For me, after having studied in depth all arguments pro and con, theism is vastly more plausible than naturalism which, when scrutinized in depth, is in my opinion much weaker than it may at first appear on the surface. Am I absolutely certain about my worldview? No, there is no absolute certainty. Could I be wrong? Yes. Do I think that is likely? No, I find it very unlikely. There is nothing that reasonably would hold me back from living a life as convinced Catholic.

This is my last post for the next 1.5 days here, given that I will now concentrate on celebrating the coming of Our Lord.

Merry Christmas to everyone!

 

[Peter_Plato]

As soon as you look for supporting information, you use the scientific method.

In that case I only need to point out that you yourself stated the claims were “unsubstantiated.” There is no need on my part to be compelled to doubt, then, that they, in fact, are since you, who are making the claims, said the claims were “unsubstantiated,” I simply would accept that they are. Hello?

To be trustworthy is fine, but it should not be unconditional. That would be “gullibility”. The first line of “defense” is to evaluate the probability of the claim. You would not believe me if I claimed that I have the Brooklyn bridge for sale for the paltry sum of a ten thousand dollars, would you? Why? Because it sounds “fishy”.

Your error is in thinking that all claims are, on their surface, equally valid or invalid. That is not true. There are all kinds of situational factors that enter into our judgements that are far too complex and particular to substantiate the above. I am perfectly capable of bringing intellectual doubt or confidence into any situation without being “gullible” merely for presuming a position that plausible claims are to be given prima facie and conditional acceptance.

Law courts do it all the time with reference to witnesses. The testimony of witnesses is presumed correct unless there is reason to doubt it. Your position seems to be that witnesses should be presumed to be bearing false witness until their account has been proven true.

To wit:

No, I do not trust claims of the miraculous healings.

If someone I had lived with for twenty years who lived with some crippling debility that doctors had said was incurable and suddenly, unexpectedly the person jumps up and starts dancing about, my first inclination is to trust. I may be skeptical if some reason comes up to support skepticism and reason would ask and inquire into the evidence, but reason does not coerce an absolute skepticism that insists, “A miracle could NOT have happened!” without a presumption that it couldn’t.

But there is no “animus” involved. I do not trust any outlandish claims without corroborating evidence. And I need to correct your wording - just a little. When I say that I reject those claims, it does not mean that I accuse the claimants of “deliberate lying”. Those people can simply be mistaken. I am familiar with the oft-repeated saying: “liar, lunatic or lord”. Those who say this present a false dilemma: the miss the fourth possibility: “legend”.

Your use of the word “outlandish” gives you and your metaphysical bias away.

Yeah, I’ve seen the claim about legend. Speaking of gullible, you’d have to be to accept that. But that is a whole new thread.

 

[Hee_Zen]

In that case I only need to point out that you yourself stated the claims were “unsubstantiated.” There is no need on my part to be compelled to doubt, then, that they, in fact, are since you, who are making the claims, said the claims were “unsubstantiated,” I simply would accept that they are. Hello?

That they are “what”? Believable or unbelievable? Unsubstantiated simply means that you only have my word for the claims, nothing else.

Your error is in thinking that all claims are, on their surface, equally valid or invalid.

I am almost speechless. My standing is the exact opposite. Where did you get this one from? I say that the more unlikely a claim is the more need is there for supporting evidence. You, yourself said that you would want to examine my bank account before you would have accepted my claim that I won vast sums on the lottery. That is healthy skepticism.

Law courts do it all the time with reference to witnesses. The testimony of witnesses is presumed correct unless there is reason to doubt it. Your position seems to be that witnesses should be presumed to be bearing false witness until their account has been proven true.

Not true. The witnesses for the prosecution are not presumed to be without error - by the defense. And conversely, the witnesses of the defense are treated with suspicion by the prosecution. That is the reason for the cross-examination. Not that they are explicitly accused of lying. Just to find out if their testimony is trustworthy or not. Are you familiar with the fact that 10 witnesses are likely to “recall” the same event and all 10 remember it differently. And here we speak of eye-witnesses, but some second- or third hand testimonials - which are not even admissible in court.

If someone I had lived with for twenty years who lived with some crippling debility that doctors had said was incurable and suddenly, unexpectedly the person jumps up and starts dancing about, my first inclination is to trust.

If such a phenomenon happened to me personally, that might be something to consider. But when someone else claims something similar, my skepticism “kicks in” - just like yours when I claim the 10 consecutive wins on the lottery. It looks like that you are almost exactly as skeptical as I am, but your skepticism does not extend to “miracles”. I am an equal opportunity skeptic.

I may be skeptical if some reason comes up to support skepticism and reason would ask and inquire into the evidence, but reason does not coerce an absolute skepticism that insists, “A miracle could NOT have happened!” without a presumption that it couldn’t.

The probability of a “miracle” is much less than winning 10 times on the lottery. However, the problem is much deeper. There is no epistemological method to separate the “natural” and the “miraculous”. The best you can offer is to try to find a “natural” explanation, and then “cut off” the search at an arbitrary point and declare - “well this must have been a miracle”. There is no explanation of “where” and “when” the search should be terminated. And this is the fundamental problem.

Your use of the word “outlandish” gives you and your metaphysical bias away.

Does it now? I don’t believe in LGM (little green men) and their alleged escapades here on Earth - like kidnapping residents and performing experiments on them. I do not believe in Nessie. And I don’t believe that one can “walk on water” or “feed a multitude of people with one fish and a loaf of bread” or "return from the dead. Yes, these are all “outlandish” claims and all are treated with the same level of skepticism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The probability of a “miracle” is much less than winning 10 times on the lottery.

Ah, yes. Here is your problem!

You cannot claim the probability of a miracle is “much less than winning 10 times on the lottery” because, while calculating the odds of winning the lottery is a matter mathematical certainty, the odds of a miracle happening are completely unknown. We would not even begin to know what to consider when doing the calculation.

You can’t know if the odds of a miracle occurring are impossible, probable, certain or unlikely because there are no mathematical means by which to determine or take into account the relevant supernatural variables. A miracle would have supernatural, not natural, (name removed by moderator)uts. That is exactly what a miracle is.

Your naturalistic metaphysics might lead you to think you have something relevant to say on the subject, but it doesn’t.

Accounting for naturalistic events requires a naturalistic accounting, but you cannot base the probability of a supernatural event occurring on naturalistic considerations. That would merely make the event you are calculating a natural, and not supernatural, one.

Your logic is misconceived.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does it now? I don’t believe in LGM (little green men) and their alleged escapades here on Earth - like kidnapping residents and performing experiments on them. I do not believe in Nessie. And I don’t believe that one can “walk on water” or “feed a multitude of people with one fish and a loaf of bread” or "return from the dead. Yes, these are all “outlandish” claims and all are treated with the same level of skepticism.

Little green men and their alleged escapade are naturalistic claims - extraterrestrial to be sure - but naturalistic. Therefore, the odds of LGM prancing about on our planet is or is eligible for naturalistic assessments regarding probability.

When speaking of God, that is precisely what we are NOT doing: appealing to nature or naturalistic determinants.

 

[tonyrey]

Very interesting reply. Without any intention to be inappropriate about it, I have to point out that you did not actually answer the two questions I presented. If you would have asked me these two questions, my replies would have been:

1. Yes, I believe that you did not win. Such a claim is very mundane, and there is no reason to “lie” about it.
2. No, I don’t believe this claim. It is not theoretically impossible to hit the 5 numbers on the Powerball, after all its probability is one in 5,006,386. But to win 10 **consecutive **times is so unlikely that I would be willing to bet my life against it.

Now let me get back to your actual reply. It is very interesting that you started with “looking me in the eye”. You do not have the option to do so, you must rely on what I said. No additional information is available to you. But the fact that you **wish **to gain additional information is what makes your reply so interesting. And then you say that the analysis of my bank account would reveal if I “lied” or not. So you would wish to rely on **additional, objective **information to render your verdict! My word is no longer sufficient. In other words you would wish to verify if my claim is truthful or not. And the principle of verification is the cornerstone of the scientific method! There is no need to use scales or a litmus test in order to be scientific.

As soon as you look for supporting information, you use the scientific method.

To be trustworthy is fine, but it should not be unconditional. That would be “gullibility”. The first line of “defense” is to evaluate the probability of the claim. You would not believe me if I claimed that I have the Brooklyn bridge for sale for the paltry sum of a ten thousand dollars, would you? Why? Because it sounds “fishy”.

No, I do not trust claims of the miraculous healings. But there is no “animus” involved. I do not trust any outlandish claims without corroborating evidence. And I need to correct your wording - just a little. When I say that I reject those claims, it does not mean that I accuse the claimants of “deliberate lying”. Those people can simply be mistaken. I am familiar with the oft-repeated saying: “liar, lunatic or lord”. Those who say this present a false dilemma: the miss the fourth possibility: “legend”.

Your hypothesis not only ignores the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus but also fails to explain the origin of His moral teaching, the survival of His community for over two thousand years, its expansion to the far ends of the earth, its membership of more than two billion people - one third of the human race - and the culmination of its influence in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also grossly understimates the intelligence of the ordinary person because the vast majority of men and women are quite capable of distinguishing fact from fantasy on such a large scale. Not only does the truth shine by its own light but “by their fruits you shall know them…” Which other legend do you know that has had such an immense impact on civilisation?

 

[Bradski]

Joe: Hey, have you finished checking out that case where the kid from Poughkeepsie recovered from cancer? The local priest wants to know if it’s a miracle.
Mary: Well, I’m still doing some tests. I don’t think I’ll be finished until the end of the week. And even then…
Joe: Look, we can’t keep on and on testing. At some point we have to stop and say that there’s no answer that we can discover that can explain it.
Mary: OK, when do you want to do that?
Joe: How about Friday? Is Friday good for you?
Mary: Yeah, Friday is good. I’ll stop looking then.
Joe: Five o’clock?
Mary: Ah, look, I was hoping to catch up with some friends early evening. Can we say four? I’ll stop looking at 4:00 o’clock?
Joe: Great. I’ll let Father O’Brien know that he can go with ‘miracle’ on Friday, but no sooner than 4:00pm.

And a happy Xmas to everyone. Whatever it means to you I hope that you and your families enjoy it. We get to start early on this side of the planet, so it’s blue skies and champagne cocktails already (hey, I’m an atheist for God’s sake. What did you expect…).

 

[Hee_Zen]

Ah, yes. Here is your problem!

You cannot claim the probability of a miracle is “much less than winning 10 times on the lottery” because, while calculating the odds of winning the lottery is a matter mathematical certainty, the odds of a miracle happening are completely unknown. We would not even begin to know what to consider when doing the calculation.

Sure. We cannot calculate it, but we can make observations, and based upon the observations we can make estimates. Just like observing the results of the dice-toss, we can deduce that the dice is loaded or not - even without having direct access to the dice. The point is that there are no observed and verified “miracles” at all. Miracles do not “happen” they are “declared”. And winnings on the lottery are infrequent, but they do occur, once in a while.

The problem for the “miracles” is that there is no epistemological method to separate the “natural” from the “supernatural”. As your posts and others say, one must try to find a natural explanation, and when one fails, then is the time to **declare **a “miracle”. But this is totally contingent upon the level of the investigator. What was a “miracle” a hundred years ago, is a “ho-hum” today. What is considered to be a “miracle” today will be just a normal event tomorrow. (Today and tomorrow are not to be taken literally). And that problem cannot be overcome.

One of the supposed evidences for God were (or rather: used to be) the “unexplainable” events. It is called “the God of the gaps”. As we advance, the gap is constantly shrinking. Just like the “miracles”.

I feel compelled to reiterate that your healthy skepticism about my claims lead you to the verification principle, which is the fundamental principle of empiricism, in other words the scientific method. And that is very promising.

Now, let’s make another step. You say that demanding physical evidence for the supernatural is unreasonable, since the supernatural cannot be directly observed. It is correct, but you (and all the apologists) forget that the supernatural is (allegedy) in constant interaction with the natural. And as such, even if the supernatural cannot be observed directly, the effects of its interaction can be. Before anyone could directly observe the outer planets, their perturbation on the observed planets could be observed and measured, and as such the properties of the unobserved planets could be determined.

Do you understand the validity of this approach?