To Deny God is to deny life
Offline Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.
- Login to post comments
Offline 1) A miracle does not demonstrate that christ was authoritative, but it establishes a reasonable belief in his authority?
I am sorry about the confusion. I miswrote that, having written something else and erased it only partially. Sorry.
I meant that miracles establish Christ's authority as God, and what He says is thus infinitely trustworthy.
2) "...from which we establish an infinite certitude about what He says, assuming He is God"As you'll learn in any logic class, a false assumption permits one to establish an "infinite certitude" about anything....
There is no reason to assume that it is a false premise.
I really don't recall any clear definition on your part of "substantial" vs. "productive" miracles....
I am writing more than a few posts at the same time, and that is why I thought I had already posted said distinction. Apparently, I did not.
DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES!!!? How can we talk about DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES when we haven't even established that they exist? We might as well be talking about the menstrual cycles of mermaids, or the digestive processes of trolls...
There are different species of miracles, in that some are done in such a way that natural effort can produce the effect or it cannot. Natural effort cannot produce the effect found in "substantial" miracles. An example would be that I can never naturally make the sun dance, or cause dead men to rise to life, or regrow a limb. Natural effort can produce the effect found in miracles of "production," but never in the same way. So, for example, I can make water into wine by watering a grape plant, making grape juice, and fermenting the juice. However, I cannot produce it in the same way Christ did, by pouring water into pots and instantly converting it without an outside agency.
You don't see a reason, or you don't want to see a reason? How many illnesses and conditions were attributed to evil spirits or god's wrath, which "a more complex understanding of human physiology" yielded diagnosis and treatment of? Do you think we've learned as much as we're going to learn? Anything we haven't explained yet is never going to be explained?
I think we can learn new things. We just know enough to say, for example, that a dead man cannot return to life. No chance. Nada. The same goes for flesh and blood. Survival time = 1200 years? No.
...it is rather, RATHER silly to think " we have no scientific knowledge of X, we will never have scientific knowledge of X, therefore: god/jesus/blah".
That is not my argument.
"We can never have knowledge of how to do X, therefore it is beyond the order of nature and hence a miracle."
Then why are we talking about it? Is it even testable in an extraordinary sense?
Yes. That is the point of a miracle. To prove the authenticity of the revelation.
Can't say for sure, but if I was a typical illiterate fisherman in 1st Century Galilee witnessing a carpenter wither a fig tree or walk on water, my immediate reaction would not be to point and say "Hey! That man can forgive sins, which are not verifiable in an ordinary sense, and hence he is god incarnate!"
The event occurs in Scripture and Christ Himself makes an argument that basically goes: "If I say, I forgive sins, you might not believe me. But to show that I do have the authority, "rise and walk." Hence, I, Christ, can forgive sins."
I think this argument is clear enough that even a Galilean fisherman could understand.
What for? If everyone's already decided that they're miracles, what is left to investigate? If, on the other hand, we have non-rancid blood from 1200 years ago (which I for one remain entirely skeptical of), and there's even the off chance of a non-miraculous explanation, yes, it would have great implications in the field of medicine. Honestly, what would you accept as a non-miraculous explanation, or will you simply not consider that possibility in the first place?
I don't see such an explanation as possible at all. It is entirely not within the order of nature. We can confirm by scientific studies that they truly are miraculous.
Yes, I'm sure they keep very busy. I heard they took their postings off Monster because they couldn't handle all the applicants.
Don't be so cynical. Very good doctors form their team, atheists and skeptics being critical to ensure fairness.
Then your claims of church unity are really not all that impressive, are they? I actually wonder if Splendor Veritatis reduced the church to an army of one.
Splendor Veritatis? What does that have to do with it?
The Catholic Church, however, has remained a unified body that is historically traceable from Christ until today. It is not news. You can trace the succession of the Popes and the bishops to the apostles.
If hurricanes are indicative of an intelligent orderer, i think god would do us all a favor by getting a lobotomy and dumbing himself down.
I still see no argument against that fact that order thus exists.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline This is a different thing. Still in my opinion a miracle (the Church it open to debate, however), but a different thing that the one I was presenting.
Then I haven't even found mention of it, let alone any scientific documentation. Leading me to believe it's a figment of your imagination. Like god.
I told you it was.
So? That's not even remotely resembling evidence.
It was for the studies on Lanciano. You are reading an article about a miracle in Naples, not Lanciano. The miraculous host at Lanciano was sampled and analyzed.
Lanciano doesn't exist.
Yes, it is a picture of a paper on a wall. But it is a picture of a paper on a wall that indicates what you wanted me to indicate. Namely, that tests had been performed, samples taken, that indicated that Lanciano was real human blood and flesh over 1200 years old that was unexplainable by medical science.
Nope. It says the moon is made of green cheese. And I know it isn't, so the paper lies. It also isn't scientific, so it's a lie even before it's a lie. Oh I like that.
You cannot confirm that the blood was type AB if it was not blood in the first place.
You haven't empirically confirmed it was blood in the first place, so the AB reading was obviously contamination.
Preservative measures don’t exist for that. Which is why blood banks constantly need donations.
So your knowledge of medicine and logic applied therein is as pathetic as that of science. Can't say I'm surprised.
Not one human could be alive with preservatives running through their body. Incredibly stupid notion.
It is not impossible. Scientific teams examine them all the time.
Lies. That's what I'm going to say to every lie or unproven assumption you make. Makes things faster. Explaining things to you is often pointless, since you usually don't know how things work.
Mummies are destroyed by free contact with the air.
Lies.
Not immediately. But it is like any other historical artifact. They deteriorate according to their exposure.
Lies.
Actually, they have.
Lies.
Many of the churches in Italy which have incorruptibles allowed scientists to autopsy them. I have not found a report of those on the internet yet, but not everything is on the Internet, of course.
*Rolls eyes*
The Church does not refuse to do so.
Yes it does.
The Church allows scientists to examine the bodies all the time.
Lies.
It is not hard to find out.
Lies.
There is a Pontifical Academy of Science, but these are not involved with these sort of investigations, but with ordinary affairs with the scientific community. There are no “Church” doctors at all, other than Catholic doctors. But Catholic doctors are not the exclusive or even majority group investigating these miracles.
Lies.
Prove that crazy claim before you make it.
Google church + scientist. Google church + doctor. Monopolization point proven.
Too bad. ‘Cause it was published in a reputably peer-reviewed medical journal like you wanted.
Lies. I said scientific, not medical. Stop putting words in my mouth, it only makes you look a fool.
Don’t stick to your original standards for evidence or anything.
Don't pay attention or anything.
Not true.
Only applies to your response. My original comment is quite true.
Now you are manifestly shifting your position.
Lies. You tried to side step and I cornered you.
And English is now a requirement as well?
It is if you want me to be able to read it, and to be able to consider it proof for this argument. Otherwise I'll just find some Trekkie geek and copy a few words of klingon, then claim it's the origins of the no-god texts written 50,000,000 years ago, proving every religion on the planet wrong before they were even created. And by your own just made comment, you will be unable to argue against it.
Let’s not stay in the same place for a sentence….
I don't know or care what this was supposed to mean. Probably more rambling on your side trying to deflect your massive and complete failure in anything except confirming that your god doesn't exist.
I don’t know what you mean. The Catholic Church has been solidly the same.
Lies.
Other groups have split away, but the Catholic Church itself has not split.
Split before it even started. Learn your history. I'm not going to argue established fact with someone who argues with antiquated notions, outdated resources, and false scripture. Waste of my time.
History, the records of early Christians, the attestation of the Gospels and the book of Acts of the Apostles, ect.
So nothing more than fiction then. Thought so.
I never denied that some factions broke off. But the Catholic Church itself has remained throughout the centuries from Christ’s founding of it.
More of the same.
I presented peer-reviewed medical journals. Get over it.
You've provided nothing of scientific value. Get over it.
Guess what? Cryogenics has not been satisfactorily applied yet outside of sci-fi movies.
Guess what? It doesn't have to actually be done before it's established as technically doable.
I know many in the medical profession. Give me a good example with references if you want to say that.
I don't have to. I heard of it. = your responses.
The hour was under induced hypothermia.
Good for the hour. It's still bullshit. People have been revived after longer periods. I used to have a friend who was clinically dead for 5 hours before resusitation(sp). You're wrong, that's all there is to it.
You have not proven why it is such.
Yes I have. And then you furthered the proof by throwing in more irrationality.
I seem to have at least something of good evidence in peer reviewed medical journals which establishes the case that miracles could be at least argued to have happened in a verifiable way. Even if they have not, these sources exist and my belief in miracles is not irrational or contrary to the evidence.
You're mistaken when you think you've provided a shred of evidence to a single claim you've made in a single topic you've posted in against a single debator on the site. This has been mentioned repeatedly to you, but you irrationally disregard it.
It is often green.
Only if you're colour blind. Blue, white, grey, red, orange. Those are the colours/tints the moon appears in. Not green.
And it depends on the circumstances. It could be merely reflecting the light in a strange fashion making it look a different color.
But you'd have to prove that in order to back up your claim. Which you can't do because you're disregarding the science that shows what it is in the first place. So you lose.
But I see no reason to believe your claim that the moon is not made of green cheese unless you pay for my ticket there.
Irrational.
Otherwise, you have no way to prove it to me.
Irrational.
How can peer-reviewed journals then satisfy you?
By being scientific.
You rejected them earlier
I've done no such thing.
and I am beginning to think that it will do no good to further supply your false need for evidence.
Irrational.
I never claimed you could.
Then your whole moon analogy is fundamentally flawed and completely irrelevant.
But miracles support truths of the Catholic faith that are inaccessible to human reason
Nope. They only prove we don't know everything.
(like transubstantiation in the Eucharist)
Fiction.
rather than naturally known truths.
No such thing.
The existence of God is a natural truth that you don’t need faith to know.
Fiction based on fictional concept.
I provide clear evidence for my beliefs.
Lies.
Even if you were spreading lies with a pamphlet on how God doesn’t exist, and it seemed that the evidence you had would support this position, I do not fault you for being an irrational zombie who spreads a disease.
Well I fault you for being one. Fortunately I'm not an irrational zombie like yourself.
Your position is wrong but you think it is rational.
Got that backwards.
Which is perfectly acceptable.
No it isn't.
It is wrong, but you have sufficient reason to hold it.
You are wrong, and don't even have sufficient reason to hold on to your wrong beliefs. Definition of irrational.
You are not acting on an irrational belief. You are acting on a wrong one.
Nope. I'm rationally acting on reality. You're irrationally acting on delusion.
However, your condemnation of me is exactly the opposite.
If I'd condemned you I wouldn't be talking to you. There was some theist moron in another topic who pretended to be a biologist that I've condemned as a moron. You aren't there yet. Not even close. At least your lies are based in ignorance. His were in stupidity.
I don’t shove it down your throat
Yes you do. You're trying to do it right now. Failing mind you, but trying.
and I see no reason why we are either a mindless disorder or detrimental to the “future of our species.”
Because you haven't let go of your irrationality yet, if you ever will. Once/if you do, you'll get it.
You seem to have a rather high expectation for human technology; I recall, “technology will reveal it in time.”
Misquote. I said time answers all.
I think you are wrong, but not necessarily irrational.
I know you are wrong and irrational.
The more you shift your positions, however, the less honest I think you to be.
Projection of your own shifting onto me.
Existence in God is the cause of existence in things.
Nope. Existance is existance. That's all there is to it. There is no god to exist to force us to depend on to exist.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:It is, as human beings cannot instantly heal a man of crippled legs. And we are not talking about fake healings. For example, a man in Italy was healed by Padre Pio (now a saint) of crippled legs, where he had a congential disorder that I believe caused them to be calcified. He met Padre Pio, who promised to pray for him. Very shortly thereafter, the next day, the man was able to walk, inexplicably. The very odd thing was that his legs remained, for all intents and purposes, calcified. It defied science that he was perfectly able to walk in this situation.I really have no notion where you're going with the "rise and walk"/"forgive sins" interlude. If you're implying "rise and walk" is a miracle of clearly supernatural character, you're wrong. There is nothing clearly supernatural about that.
This is becomming a common theme for you, but can I have a link please? A verifiable source reviewed by multiple parties? Or do we just have your anecdotal report to go on?
- Login to post comments
Offline Once again, you start citing Scripture as a reliable source for your claims. After all this time, you have not proven that scripture is a reliable source. Either do so, or stop citing it. Consider:
I am sorry about the confusion. I miswrote that, having written something else and erased it only partially.
Very well. That's all it takes a slight error to emerge. One small oversight, despite the amenities of technology. Yet you would think that word of mouth transmission over the course of a generation preserved an iron-clad historical account of a person named jesus, miracles in tow. Pardon me while I disagree.
I meant that miracles establish Christ's authority as God, and what He says is thus infinitely trustworthy.Quote:There is no reason to assume that it is a false premise.As you'll learn in any logic class, a false assumption permits one to establish an "infinite certitude" about anything....
There is every reason to assume it as a false premise! It defies common sense! Do the tricks that the birthday clown performs also establish christ's authority? It's okay! You don't need miracles! The real world is fascinating enough!
Quote:There are different species of miracles, in that some are done in such a way that natural effort can produce the effect or it cannot. Natural effort cannot produce the effect found in "substantial" miracles. An example would be that I can never naturally make the sun dance, or cause dead men to rise to life, or regrow a limb.DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES!!!? How can we talk about DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES when we haven't even established that they exist? We might as well be talking about the menstrual cycles of mermaids, or the digestive processes of trolls...
Okay, let's try again...
DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES!!!? How can we talk about DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES when we haven't even established that they exist? We might as well be talking about the menstrual cycles of mermaids, or the digestive processes of trolls!
Michael, neither has god every made the sun dance (Phaethon maybe, but never your god) or regrown limbs. If the sun danced, havoc would have resulted. I'm sure you've already heard of http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/, but maybe check it out to see how benevolent your miracle-working god is.
As far as raising the dead: Has this in fact happened? Your miracle patent committee has confirmed this? Are any of these raised dead still alive, or did they die again (I always wonder what happened to Lazarus)? If they did die again, what was the point? Also, catalepsy is a known medical condition where a person forgoes all vital signs, and then revives later. Nothing miraculous about that.
Natural effort can produce the effect found in miracles of "production," but never in the same way. So, for example, I can make water into wine by watering a grape plant, making grape juice, and fermenting the juice. However, I cannot produce it in the same way Christ did, by pouring water into pots and instantly converting it without an outside agency.
Your only basis for this is scripture, which as mentioned above has not yet been established as reliable. Until it is so established screw miracles of "production". And jesus wasn't the first figure of antiquity to have this attributed to him, so if anything, he's stealing someone else's act. I'd expect more from the son of gawd.
I think we can learn new things. We just know enough to say, for example, that a dead man cannot return to life. No chance. Nada. The same goes for flesh and blood. Survival time = 1200 years? No.
And we still have no proof that a single dead man returned to life. No chance. Nada. The jury is still out on your flesh and blood in Lanciano. You have made an attempt to provide some corroboration (thank you), but nothing yet convincing. We are trying to get there, however. You've been asked to provide more information on this supposedly objective board which certifies all attributed miracles. Until that gains greater traction, please refrain from citing the lanciano phenomenon as a fact. It might be just as easy for you to write to Ratzinger, so he can write to god, and have him duplicate the lanciano miracle under controlled laboratory conditions, here in the States. That would much more rapidly settle the debate. Only if god's not too busy, of course...
Quote:Yes.Then why are we talking about it? Is it even testable in an extraordinary sense?
Fine. If it is not testable in an ordinary sense, I do not have to believe it, in an ordinary sense. So, in an ordinary sense, god does not exist.
The event occurs in Scripture and Christ Himself makes an argument that basically goes: "If I say, I forgive sins, you might not believe me. But to show that I do have the authority, "rise and walk." Hence, I, Christ, can forgive sins." I think this argument is clear enough that even a Galilean fisherman could understand.
That pesky scripture again. Not yet a reliable source - not yet a good reason to believe in miracles. Jim Jones pulled that same stunt more recently, of performing stunts and then claiming he was divine - and we do have hard evidence of that. It would appear he attempted the wedding feast miracle also (using Kool-Aid instead of water), but the miracle went horribly awry.
I don't see such an explanation as possible at all. It is entirely not within the order of nature. We can confirm by scientific studies that they truly are miraculous. Very good doctors form their team, atheists and skeptics being critical to ensure fairness.
Just curious...do these atheists & skeptics (assuming this group of fact-checkers even exists) remain atheists & skeptics following the study? If so, why? If not, do they have to continuously canvas for new atheists and skeptics after each certified miracle?
If god keeps dropping down these goodies which confound the order of nature, why should we even bother respecting the order of nature? Why should I apply logic to any aspect of my life, and act as if the order of nature holds, when at any moment, god can lift the needle off the record? Why eat, why turn the ignition in the car, why assume the elevator is going to hold my weight, when some miracle can throw into confusion any or all those things we take for granted, just because some saint needs to get his chops?
Quote:Splendor Veritatis? What does that have to do with it? The Catholic Church, however, has remained a unified body that is historically traceable from Christ until today. It is not news. You can trace the succession of the Popes and the bishops to the apostles.Then your claims of church unity are really not all that impressive, are they? I actually wonder if Splendor Veritatis reduced the church to an army of one.
Yup. You can trace hindus back further than that. Let's go worship some water buffalo.
I still see no argument against that fact that order thus exists.
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
Offline An example would be that I can never naturally make the sun dance, or cause dead men to rise to life, or regrow a limb.
Of course not. A man regrowing his limb? No mammal can do that. Especially not humans, but neither can dogs nor cats nor mice.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,68962-0.html
oops.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Then I haven't even found mention of it, let alone any scientific documentation. Leading me to believe it's a figment of your imagination. Like god.
What are you talking about? I have been providing documentation this entire time!
Lanciano doesn't exist.
Well, then, I can't help you. I fear this conversation must come to a quick end.
Once again, you start citing Scripture as a reliable source for your claims. After all this time, you have not proven that scripture is a reliable source. Either do so, or stop citing it.
Scripture is not being used to prove anything. The most I used was an analogy from Scripture where Christ performs an action that indicates how miracles establish authority.
Very well. That's all it takes a slight error to emerge. One small oversight, despite the amenities of technology. Yet you would think that word of mouth transmission over the course of a generation preserved an iron-clad historical account of a person named jesus, miracles in tow. Pardon me while I disagree.
Except that we are not talking about that sort of oral tradition.
There is every reason to assume it as a false premise! It defies common sense! Do the tricks that the birthday clown performs also establish christ's authority?
"It defies common sense!" It does not. We are not talking about magic tricks, we are talking about clear miracles that no human being can do. We are talking about curing dead limbs, raising the dead, ect. But, again, you assume a false premise.
DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES!!!? How can we talk about DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES when we haven't even established that they exist? We might as well be talking about the menstrual cycles of mermaids, or the digestive processes of trolls!
Even if we have not proven them to exist, it has no bearing on whether such things are divided as such. A miracle is an event that happens outside of the ordinary course of nature. It can happen in two ways: the effect itself is beyond nature, or the method of obtaining that effect is beyond nature.
Michael, neither has god every made the sun dance (Phaethon maybe, but never your god) or regrown limbs. If the sun danced, havoc would have resulted.
Limbs have been restored to people who lost them in accounts of miracles throughout history, from Christ himself.
As far as raising the dead: Has this in fact happened?
Many saints throughout history have done this. It is a rarer miracle, but it happens. Saint Dominic famously raised a mangled boy to life and restored him whole after the boy was run over by a carriage. Saint Hyacinth rose quite a few people back from the dead.
Are any of these raised dead still alive, or did they die again (I always wonder what happened to Lazarus)? If they did die again, what was the point?
The raised dead, of course, die again. Their miraculous raising is proof of God's power and a show of the authority of the message being preached.
Also, catalepsy is a known medical condition where a person forgoes all vital signs, and then revives later. Nothing miraculous about that.
Wrong. The cataleptic does not "forgoe" vital signs. His vitals slow down, but if they disappeared, he would be dead.
Your only basis for this is scripture, which as mentioned above has not yet been established as reliable. Until it is so established screw miracles of "production". And jesus wasn't the first figure of antiquity to have this attributed to him, so if anything, he's stealing someone else's act. I'd expect more from the son of gawd.
It is not based in Scripture. I never used Scripture to prove that they happened, I just offered an example from Scripture. Another example: in the order of production, human power can bring about the healing of sick people. However, certain healings of metastatic cancers which riddled the bodies of patients were cured in a miraculous way instantly without recurrence, with no treatment. This is likewise a miracle of production.
The jury is still out on your flesh and blood in Lanciano. You have made an attempt to provide some corroboration (thank you), but nothing yet convincing.
And why is it not yet convincing? Independent medical studies occured at Lanciano that verified it multiple times! Their paperwork and reports are both posted in the shrine and available if you ask for them.
You've been asked to provide more information on this supposedly objective board which certifies all attributed miracles.
It doesn't certify ALL miracles. It is a particular medical board that certifies and evaluates claims of miraculous medical healing at the shrine at Lourdes, France.
Until that gains greater traction, please refrain from citing the lanciano phenomenon as a fact.
The Lourdes Committee has no reference to Lanciano.
It might be just as easy for you to write to Ratzinger, so he can write to god, and have him duplicate the lanciano miracle under controlled laboratory conditions, here in the States. That would much more rapidly settle the debate. Only if god's not too busy, of course...
A total and utter misunderstanding of Catholic dogma.
Fine. If it is not testable in an ordinary sense, I do not have to believe it, in an ordinary sense. So, in an ordinary sense, god does not exist.
It is not a proof for the existence of God. It is a proof for the truth of articles of faith, of which the existence of God is not directly related.
Also, why is it not testable in an ordinary sense?
That pesky scripture again. Not yet a reliable source - not yet a good reason to believe in miracles.
YOU were the one who claimed that no one could follow that line of reasoning! I gave an example of it!
Just curious...do these atheists & skeptics (assuming this group of fact-checkers even exists) remain atheists & skeptics following the study? If so, why? If not, do they have to continuously canvas for new atheists and skeptics after each certified miracle?
I am sorry, as far as I know no atheists are on the board. I meant merely skeptics, but I was writing in a hurry.
If god keeps dropping down these goodies which confound the order of nature, why should we even bother respecting the order of nature? Why should I apply logic to any aspect of my life, and act as if the order of nature holds, when at any moment, god can lift the needle off the record? Why eat, why turn the ignition in the car, why assume the elevator is going to hold my weight, when some miracle can throw into confusion any or all those things we take for granted, just because some saint needs to get his chops?
God's intervention is not an ordinary event. That is precisely the issue. God's intervention is not something assumed according to the ordinary laws of nature. God only acts in this way to confirm His character as author of nature to us.
Yup. You can trace hindus back further than that. Let's go worship some water buffalo.
I never claimed the antiquity itself was the reason to believe them, just that the unbroken chain of succession to Christ as a unified body was a partial indication of their divine character. Also, the Hindus have had quite a few breaks in authority and have no central body, as the Catholic Church does.
Don't you? An ordered system which wreacks chaos, upon nature and civilization? Praise god.
It wreaks havoc, not because of God's design, but because of the effects of original sin which makes death and suffering a reality.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline That miracle involving the dancing sun is clear proof that a massive number of people can be lead to testify to having seen something that did not actually occur. There are plausible psychological mechanisms for this, vastly more plausible than that such an event actually occurred as reported. IOW, some unfamiliar phenomena probably occurred, which was mis-interpreted. Some natural but unusual atmospheric effect or whatever. When something unfamiliar is seen, the brain, in attempting to make sense of it, can create very bizarre impressions.
The dancing sun would have to have been observed over the entire daylight side of the earth, which AFAIK, was not the case. This is ignoring the severe physical difficulties of of keeping the Earth stable and earthquake free during such an event, but of course that is part of the miracle.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:
Then I haven't even found mention of it, let alone any scientific documentation. Leading me to believe it's a figment of your imagination. Like god.What are you talking about? I have been providing documentation this entire time!
Invalid church documentation and a few things I can't read. You've provided nothing.
Quote:
Lanciano doesn't exist.Well, then, I can't help you. I fear this conversation must come to a quick end.
I could have told you that you couldn't "help" me when you first started posting. Though I'm disappointed you didn't take advantage of this comment. Ah well. If you really feel it must end, then I suggest you leave the site altogether. Because I'm not about to stop debunking you. Neither are others. And if you repeat the same bs too many times, you'll probably be forced out for breaking terms and conditions.
I'll take the fact that you were unable to counter the rest of my post as empirical evidence to it's truthfullness, and admission that your god doesn't exist and is impossible.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline That miracle involving the dancing sun is clear proof that a massive number of people can be lead to testify to having seen something that did not actually occur. There are plausible psychological mechanisms for this, vastly more plausible than that such an event actually occurred as reported. IOW, some unfamiliar phenomena probably occurred, which was mis-interpreted. Some natural but unusual atmospheric effect or whatever. When something unfamiliar is seen, the brain, in attempting to make sense of it, can create very bizarre impressions.
The dancing sun would have to have been observed over the entire daylight side of the earth, which AFAIK, was not the case. This is ignoring the severe physical difficulties of of keeping the Earth stable and earthquake free during such an event, but of course that is part of the miracle.
It would do more than that. The gravitational effects would be beyond catastrophic and would likely leave our planet in a state much like Mars. Maybe that's what happened to Mars? God made the sun dance and then went "Aww crap, well, I guess I won't do that again." 
:D
- Login to post comments
Offline Such an event would throw the entire solar system into disarray. A billion comets and rocks would be dislodged from the oort cloud and head inbound. Jupiter and Saturn could rip into puff balls of frozen clouds. Mercury would be swallowed in a fraction of a second. Venus' atmosphere would be ripped away(if not the entire planet). Pluto would either get swallowed or ejected. Not to mention the affects on the galactic area.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Such an event would throw the entire solar system into disarray. A billion comets and rocks would be dislodged from the oort cloud and head inbound. Jupiter and Saturn could rip into puff balls of frozen clouds. Mercury would be swallowed in a fraction of a second. Venus' atmosphere would be ripped away(if not the entire planet). Pluto would either get swallowed or ejected. Not to mention the affects on the galactic area.
There would certainly be Solar System-wide effects, if the Sun did 'dance'.
However, I am sure the reply would be that God used his power to keep everything in place while he moved the Sun. My point was that even if God had managed that, it would have been reported all over the sunlit world. Which presents a problem - I think we would have had reports from more than just one place.
Or maybe all He did was literally create a local illusion. Doesn't sound quite as impressive tho. 
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Invalid church documentation and a few things I can't read. You've provided nothing.
You have just rejected it because it claims there is a miracle and because it claims that the Catholic Church is correct. Also, it is clear that evidence exists, even if written in other languages. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
I could have told you that you couldn't "help" me when you first started posting.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't listen to reason. I hoped that people here were better than retreating into irrationality.
If you really feel it must end, then I suggest you leave the site altogether. Because I'm not about to stop debunking you. Neither are others. And if you repeat the same bs too many times, you'll probably be forced out for breaking terms and conditions.
You can't "debunk" my answers by just writing off everything I say with the word, "lies," or just asserting that everything I talk about doesn't exist. If you want to, we can't have a conversation and I have no way to talk with you as a rational person.
As to the dancing of the sun, it was quite assuredly a local phenomenon. But the mere fact that it wasn't truly the dancing of the sun itself is not proof that the miracle is false. If it appears that the sun moves all around the sky, from one end to another, down toward earth and back up, I would think that is a pretty good feat.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Scripture is not being used to prove anything.Once again, you start citing Scripture as a reliable source for your claims. After all this time, you have not proven that scripture is a reliable source. Either do so, or stop citing it.
The most I used was an analogy from Scripture where Christ performs an action that indicates how miracles establish authority.
I have repeatedly challenged the historicity of jesus, and the credibility of the miracles that jesus performed. A couple of your previous quotes:
"The event occurs in Scripture and Christ Himself makes an argument that basically goes: "If I say, I forgive sins, you might not believe me. But to show that I do have the authority, "rise and walk." Hence, I, Christ, can forgive sins."
"The Gospels on a whole are obviously and clearly historical in character and the interpretative tradition of the Church confirms this character."
That you freely and frequently mention it in your arguments, you can understand how I thought you were using it as a source of proof, for whatever you were trying at the time to prove. If, as you have now clealy said, "Scripture is not being used to prove anything", do not bring it up again. Do not even use it for "analogies". You might as well be mining Shakespeare for examples.
Quote:Except that we are not talking about that sort of oral tradition.Very well. That's all it takes a slight error to emerge. One small oversight, despite the amenities of technology. Yet you would think that word of mouth transmission over the course of a generation preserved an iron-clad historical account of a person named jesus, miracles in tow. Pardon me while I disagree.
Then what "sort of oral tradition" are talking about? You have previously claimed the gospels are reliable accounts of what happened up to 70 years prior to their writing, on the belief that the events of jesus' life were accurately passed down up until the gospel writing. Are you getting ready to spring "different species" of oral tradition on me, as you did with miracles? Can't wait.
Quote:"It defies common sense!" It does not. We are not talking about magic tricks, we are talking about clear miracles that no human being can do. We are talking about curing dead limbs, raising the dead, ect. But, again, you assume a false premise.There is every reason to assume it as a false premise! It defies common sense! Do the tricks that the birthday clown performs also establish christ's authority?
How do we know we are talking about "clear miracles" (identify species, please!) and not magic tricks? To this day I don't know how the birthday clown did all those neat little tricks. No human being can spontaneously generate a rabbit in a hat, no human being can be cut in half and then restored to whole, and yet we see it done. Unless we can observe these phenomena under controlled scientific conditions (more on that later), it is much more reasonable to assume you are seeing a "magic trick", and not a "clear miracle".
Quote:Even if we have not proven them to exist, it has no bearing on whether such things are divided as such. A miracle is an event that happens outside of the ordinary course of nature. It can happen in two ways: the effect itself is beyond nature, or the method of obtaining that effect is beyond nature.DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES!!!? How can we talk about DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES when we haven't even established that they exist? We might as well be talking about the menstrual cycles of mermaids, or the digestive processes of trolls!
Yes, michael my good man, it does have bearing. Without proving them, it is an entire waste of time to talk of their "species". A mermaid is an organism that happens outside of the ordinary course of nature (mammalian upper body, piscine lower body). To talk about a mermaid's menstrual cycle without first establishing the actual existence of mermaids is an exercise in fiction. As is defining the taxonomy of miracles.
Quote:The raised dead, of course, die again. Their miraculous raising is proof of God's power and a show of the authority of the message being preached.Are any of these raised dead still alive, or did they die again (I always wonder what happened to Lazarus)? If they did die again, what was the point?
I still think it is pointless to restore someone to life just to have them die again. For what? So they can suffer death twice? So the loved ones can mourn his passing twice? Were god to do that to me, merely to use me as an example of his alleged greatness, I would take great offense. Lazarus could not be reached for comment, but I bet he did not appreciate being jesus' guinea pig. A study in cruelty, it is.
Quote:Wrong. The cataleptic does not "forgoe" vital signs. His vitals slow down, but if they disappeared, he would be dead.Also, catalepsy is a known medical condition where a person forgoes all vital signs, and then revives later. Nothing miraculous about that.
I did not say "vitals", I said "vital signs". As in, "signs of vitality". As in "signs of being alive". Lacking "vital signs" does not mean "lacking vitals". The cataleptic does indeed "lack vital signs", yet he does not "lack vitals". How easily you warp a simple phrase. Simply to hold on to your unproven belief that the dead can be restored to life.
Quote:It is not based in Scripture. I never used Scripture to prove that they happened, I just offered an example from Scripture.Your only basis for this is scripture, which as mentioned above has not yet been established as reliable...
Once again: If you can't prove that scripture is reliable, don't bother using it for examples.
Another example: in the order of production, human power can bring about the healing of sick people. However, certain healings of metastatic cancers which riddled the bodies of patients were cured in a miraculous way instantly without recurrence, with no treatment. This is likewise a miracle of production.
So are we wasting our time researching cures for cancer, when god every so often snaps his fingers (metaphoricaly speaking, of course) to cure it? Why are there only "certain healings" of cancer? Are the multitude of other people suffering not good enough to be used as examples of his greatness? Cure all cases, not just "certain" cases, and I'll be well on the way to being impressed.
Quote:And why is it not yet convincing? Independent medical studies occured at Lanciano that verified it multiple times! Their paperwork and reports are both posted in the shrine and available if you ask for them.The jury is still out on your flesh and blood in Lanciano. You have made an attempt to provide some corroboration (thank you), but nothing yet convincing.
Yes, as you have said. The thing is: You do not have to go to germany to learn Einstein's theory of relativity. You do not have to go to England to learn Newton's laws of motion. You do not have to see the original vial of broth Pasteur used in France, to understand germs. The knowledge has now spread to us all. But the knowledge that there is an all-powerful being reaching into the world and working amazing miracles such as these would be far more interesting and important. And yet we have to trudge over to some shrine in Lanciano to know this? Not adding up. Just isn't.
Quote:A total and utter misunderstanding of Catholic dogma.It might be just as easy for you to write to Ratzinger, so he can write to god, and have him duplicate the lanciano miracle under controlled laboratory conditions, here in the States. That would much more rapidly settle the debate.
How so? It would be very simple for god (wouldn't it?) to duplicate this wondrous miracle in front of "skeptics" at MIT or Berkely, with the cameras rolling. Then we would all be convinced, and you wouldn't have to keep chanting "lanciano" like a broken record! I mean, as you said god does these things to prove christ's authority, can't he give the good ol' U.S. of A. an example of their own? Hell, he could even do it in Brooklyn, if he wants to stay on the Italian theme!
Quote:It is not a proof for the existence of God. It is a proof for the truth of articles of faith, of which the existence of God is not directly related.Fine. If it is not testable in an ordinary sense, I do not have to believe it, in an ordinary sense. So, in an ordinary sense, god does not exist.
Fine then. In an ordinary sense, the articles of faith have not been proven true.
Also, why is it not testable in an ordinary sense?
You tell me. You're the one who said it: "But you miss the point about forgiving sins. I was not claiming that it was verifiable that our sins are forgiven, as it is not testable in an ordinary sense."
If you can't even keep track of your own quotes, what is the point?
Quote:I am sorry, as far as I know no atheists are on the board. I meant merely skeptics, but I was writing in a hurry.Just curious...do these atheists & skeptics (assuming this group of fact-checkers even exists) remain atheists & skeptics following the study? If so, why? If not, do they have to continuously canvas for new atheists and skeptics after each certified miracle?
You were writing in a hurry? So you were typing so fast you accidentally banged on the keyboard, and the letters just happened to spell "atheists"? Or you realized post-facto that you had painted yourself into a corner? But no matter.
Merely skeptics? How are they "merely" skeptical? They're not atheists as you've retroactively said, so what are they? Precisely what are they skeptical about? And do they remain skeptical after each certified miracle? That question still remains to be answered; you snuck around the "atheist" part of it (or at least tried to), but I would still like to know what effect the witnessing of an actual miracle has on a "skeptic". Please respond, preferably when you're not in a hurry.
God's intervention is not an ordinary event. That is precisely the issue. God's intervention is not something assumed according to the ordinary laws of nature. God only acts in this way to confirm His character as author of nature to us.
Yes, I pretty much already got that. But the situation still holds: Since these miracles are so true and all, I am free to assume --perhaps not in an "ordinary sense"-- that at any moment god is going to "act in a way to confirm His character as author of nature to us", which would override whatever I would assume "in an ordinary sense". Hence, my question: What is the point of assuming anything "in an ordinary sense", if god may at any moment override it in "an extraordinary sense"?
I never claimed the antiquity itself was the reason to believe them, just that the unbroken chain of succession to Christ as a unified body was a partial indication of their divine character. Also, the Hindus have had quite a few breaks in authority and have no central body, as the Catholic Church does.
But as you already acknowledged, all you need is a pope on the throne to say that there's a church. One old guy passing the sceptre to another is not that impressive an achievement, even over the course of 2,000 years. If that's what we need for a "partial indication of divine character", I'm still not impressed. And, like hindus, the Jews have had quite a few breaks in authority and have no central body, up until the time jesus (presumably) existed, and continuing on thereafter. So god may have had his "continuity" from the 1st century on, but it would appear it took him several millennia prior to that to get his bearings.
An ordered system which wreacks chaos, upon nature and civilization? Praise god.
So if not for original sin, we would not have warm air in the middle of the ocean organizing into a hurricane to wreack chaos, whether or not humans lie in its path. Earthquakes and volcanoes too. Products of original sin. Nice.
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
, you have not proven that he knew about these events, and that they did not simply surface later. And perhaps you just misunderstood me about the "70 years". If (a very big "If" at that) jesus lived from 0 A.D. to 33 A.D., and the gospels date to roughly 70 A.D., then the gospels account for events occurring roughly 40 - 70 prior, yes?. Just some simple arithemetic - but since you elsewhere said that "2 + 2 = 4" is less obvious to you than the virgin birth, I'm not surprised you didn't think to use it. 
", and continue blathering, as if nothing happened. You don't even have enough concern for accuracy to click back (or just scroll up!) to your previous posts to see what you yourself said. You just say "I don't think I said that...". How are we to respect your arguments -- much less the beliefs you are arguing -- when you proceed with such a lack of integrity?
http://skepdic.com/incorrupt.html
My favourite parts;
"A photo of her corpse can be seen on the cover of a book called The Incorruptibles, which claims the body has been "preserved intact since 1879 without embalming or other artificial means." Actually, the face and hands that look so real in the photo are made out of wax. The wax was added because the face was "emaciated" when the body was first exhumed (Nickell 1993: 92). "
"The body of the Venerable was found in the same state of preservation as ten years earlier, except that the face was slightly discoloured due to the washing it had undergone during the first exhumation. A worker in wax who had frequently applied such a coating to the faces of the newly dead was entrusted with the task of coating the face of the Saint who had been dead forty years."(Wax will preserve tissue)
The website and links found within cite their sources.
Anything that is properly a miracle cannot be disproven by science.
I think that the clearly supernatural character of a miracle shows the authority of the one performing said miracle. So, for example, when Christ says, "Which is easier to say: 'your sins are forgiven you' or 'rise and walk'?" and then proceeds to make the man able to walk, I place a lot of value in His claim to forgive sins and to be God. I also think that these things are inherently beyond human knowledge. We cannot explain them, period.
Then how can you say that all things will eventually be disproven by science? That seems a far more irrational belief than my own. As you said, science never claims that.
You can know enough to say that blood and flesh cannot survive in an open canister for 1200 years, let alone a day. The same goes for the fact that if I get shot in the face and my brains fly out, I am not going to live. Or, if my heart is ripped from my chest, I am going to be dead very shortly. We know quite enough to support these conclusions.
Schisms do not affect its unity as the Catholic Church.
Because ordering toward ends, not just random correspondence, is what intelligence does. Intelligence orders things toward ends. That is what we see in the world.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
"properly" a miracle? What distinguishes between a proper and an improper miracle? Please provide examples of each (drum roll...)
When is the supernatural character of a miracle ever clear? How do we know that our current inability to explain a particular phenomenon is due to "supernatural character", and not simply a deficiency in investigative resources, which future advances will permit us to overcome?
I really have no notion where you're going with the "rise and walk"/"forgive sins" interlude. If you're implying "rise and walk" is a miracle of clearly supernatural character, you're wrong. There is nothing clearly supernatural about that. Check out the clip of James Randi vs. Doris Collins in the video section of this site for an example of the fake healing of a cripple. And regardless, to specify for the general case: Even if we can't presently explain a lame man rising and walking, that is not to say future discoveries in human physiology would yield an explanation. And sure, we cannot explain the forgiveness of sins, because there's really no way to observe and test it. If it can't be observed, there's no grounds for labeling it a "miracle".
Note: By discussing jesus' healing of the cripple, I am not for a moment acknowledging that it even happened, or that jesus even existed. I'm merely saying that even if jesus did exist and told a criple to rise and walk, we do not have a certifiable miracle on our hands.
I did not say that all things will be eventually be disproven...another contributor may have said that, but I did not. I am saying is that although we can't explain something today, we shouldn't assume we can't explain it tomorrow. Science may be able to disprove tomorrow what it can't disprove today. So it is not sensible to call anything a miracle based on our current ignorance. In the future we may not be so ignorant, and at that point, things may not seem so miraculous.
You do not know enough to say that. We know oodles more about "blood and flesh" today than we knew in 1970, and there is oodles more to learn! Again, I am not tacitly agreeing that there's any truth to this claim of fresh 1200 year old blood. If there is any truth to it, I can only wonder why the case is not being vigorously investigated today by medical researchers (rather than being signed and sealed in 1970). The implications for leukemia, hemophilia, HIV etc, would be truly amazing.
It seems by your reckoning that even if every last catholic quit the church except the pope, it would still have its unity.
Heat and condensation in equatorial waters can give rise to a highly ordered structure called a hurricane. Is this intelligence at work? Is it still intelligence when the hurrican converges on New Orleans (home of the Saints)? You decide.
Take care
P.S. Are you still "tending to believe"?
There are no theists on operating tables.
Scientists are not the best people to investigate any phenomenon where there is any chance that human intervention is deliberately trying to maintain a deception of some kind.
You need to have a professional investigator with knowledge and experiences of how people can be deceived and misled, such as James Randi or Joe Nickell, assisted if necessary by technical and scientific experts.
There are plenty of examples of scientific investigators being fooled by some relatively simple trickery and/or misdirection, when someone like Randi can point to just what is happening, as with Uri Geller.
This is because nature is not a conscious entity deliberately trying to deceive them, so they don't develop skills in that area.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Yes, intelligence usually generates order in pursuit of some end, but you can't use that to imply that all ordering is towards some end, and therefore must be intelligently generated. That is simply reading that logic backwards, ignoring the possibility that not all order is 'towards some end'.
Logically, if either A or B lead to C, the presence of C does not imply A, it merely proves that A, or B, or both, may exist.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I am sorry, there seemed to be an error in my posting. I'll try to fix it below.
First, I want to point to the fact that a miracle does not demonstrate with certainty that Christ was authoritative. It establishes a reasonable belief in His authority as God, from which we establish an infinite certitude about what He says, assuming He is God. Second, miracles, as I might have pointed out, come in different species. However, all substantial and productive miracles (the two main species of miracles proper), man can perform like actions. In the first order, however, man can never do them. In the second, the effect can be brought about sometimes by human effort, but in a mode of production that human beings cannot perform.
It is, as human beings cannot instantly heal a man of crippled legs. And we are not talking about fake healings. For example, a man in Italy was healed by Padre Pio (now a saint) of crippled legs, where he had a congential disorder that I believe caused them to be calcified. He met Padre Pio, who promised to pray for him. Very shortly thereafter, the next day, the man was able to walk, inexplicably. The very odd thing was that his legs remained, for all intents and purposes, calcified. It defied science that he was perfectly able to walk in this situation.
I see no reason why a more complex understanding of human physiology would yield such a result. It is like saying that if we only understood water better, we could easily see how it could turn into wine. It is rather silly and quite a bit of an overestimated trust in science in an area that is beyond scientific knowledge.
But you miss the point about forgiving sins. I was not claiming that it was verifiable that our sins are forgiven, as it is not testable in an ordinary sense. But you see the point of the miracle, however, is to precisely verify that Christ can forgive sins, and is hence God incarnate.
Miracles are not merely a matter of ignorance. Miracles are things that are beyond human power altogether, either in mode of substance or production.
What implications for leukemia or hemophilia? It is a miracle, and has no impact on what natural science can do; further, it makes little sense as to why it would result in medical discoveries. Further, scientific teams do periodically investigate these miracles. For example, the shrine at Lourdes has its own medical commission that has existed for years to verify miracles that occured at the shrine. The diocese in which Lanciano is situated probably has established some sort of smaller committee to deal with the miraculous Host.
Yes, that would be true.
The fact that such obeys laws and exists in an ordered manner belies an intelligent orderer.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Yes, I've always found this theist dodge of Isaiah 45:7 to be pretty hilarious... it's just moving the problem one step back.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Using only your reasoning, can you determine whether or not I've forgiven you?
Look at you Michael, you're a mess! There are so many problems with that argument:
1) A miracle does not demonstrate that christ was authoritative, but it establishes a reasonable belief in his authority?
Ergo, perspiration does not demonstrate that the sun is hot, it establishes a reasonable belief in its heat? Absolutely meaningless, and that's when applied to something we know exists (the sun)!
2) "...from which we establish an infinite certitude about what He says, assuming He is God"
As you'll learn in any logic class, a false assumption permits one to establish an "infinite certitude" about anything. We can establish the Pixies stole the Snow-Dog from the Fountain of Lamneth, if we assume the moon is made of green cheese. The reports of elephant statues drinking milk in India establish a reasonable belief in Ganesh's authority,assuming he is a god. And remember, Ganesh is at least twice as old as Jesus. With more arms. And a bigger...well, you know.
I really don't recall any clear definition on your part of "substantial" vs. "productive" miracles. If we were going to enter into a discussion of miracles, you ought to have mentioned it at the outset. As I've pointed out before, you bring up these nuances later, as if I was supposed to know of them already. How many trump cards are you hiding there, boy? Ultimately, I don't mind, it's just that in the midst of trying to reach an understanding, you bring up something like this, and we have to drop everything and square dance for 20 minutes. So, Johnny rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard...
DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES!!!? How can we talk about DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MIRACLES when we haven't even established that they exist? We might as well be talking about the menstrual cycles of mermaids, or the digestive processes of trolls...
TWO MAIN SPECIES!!!? How many species are there? Might there be a couple species yet to be discovered, lurking somewhere in the Amazon? I'd just like to know now, my poor heart can't take any more surprises like this.
"In the second, the effect can be brought about sometimes by human effort, but in a mode of production that human beings cannot perform." - So I can sometimes bring about (insert "productive miracle" here), but in a mode of operation I cannot perform. Now I understand. Actually, I don't.
You don't see a reason, or you don't want to see a reason? How many illnesses and conditions were attributed to evil spirits or god's wrath, which "a more complex understanding of human physiology" yielded diagnosis and treatment of? Do you think we've learned as much as we're going to learn? Anything we haven't explained yet is never going to be explained?
I didn't realize we had even one trustworthy, documented case of that happening. Is CNN holding out on me?
Then it is rather silly to make factual claims in such an area. I don't have an overestimated trust in science; I believe there are limits to human knowledge, although we haven't reached them yet. But it is rather, RATHER silly to think " we have no scientific knowledge of X, we will never have scientific knowledge of X, therefore: god/jesus/blah".
It is plain to see in what great esteem the church holds scientific knowledge, given that it took until 1992 for Galileo to be vindicated for pointing out the blatant truth of the heavens.
Then why are we talking about it? Is it even testable in an extraordinary sense?
Can't say for sure, but if I was a typical illiterate fisherman in 1st Century Galilee witnessing a carpenter wither a fig tree or walk on water, my immediate reaction would not be to point and say "Hey! That man can forgive sins, which are not verifiable in an ordinary sense, and hence he is god incarnate!"
What for? If everyone's already decided that they're miracles, what is left to investigate? If, on the other hand, we have non-rancid blood from 1200 years ago (which I for one remain entirely skeptical of), and there's even the off chance of a non-miraculous explanation, yes, it would have great implications in the field of medicine. Honestly, what would you accept as a non-miraculous explanation, or will you simply not consider that possibility in the first place?
Yes, I'm sure they keep very busy. I heard they took their postings off Monster because they couldn't handle all the applicants.
If hurricanes are indicative of an intelligent orderer, i think god would do us all a favor by getting a lobotomy and dumbing himself down.
That's all for now kids, see you next time!
There are no theists on operating tables.