Need Some Help w/ Argument

[The GM]

We should not stop investigating anything. But we don't start with a conclusion (it's God phenomena or a miracle) and then working backward. We observe the phenomena and draw conclusions based on what we see and the tests we perform on it.

Alright, fair enough. Again, not trying to be a smart @$$ here, but trying to learn something from you fine folks, help me out.
Let's say we have a blind person w/ an incurrable problem for their condition, whatever it may be. Let's further say that said person has a laying on of hands, or a prayer vigil, or some treatment that has a definate God related flair to it. Through whatever means, the person can now see again. So, the first step in this investigation is to have doctors check it out, yes? Where does the process go from there and when does the event become a bona fide miracle?
Thanks in advance.

 

[sorgoth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Need Some Help w/ Argument

But they don't hear His voice. They hear their own brain talking to itself. If they ever actually heard a disembodied voice speaking to them - they'd crap a brick.

Nope, it's the same thing for them.

 

[c0rbin]

Alright, fair enough. Again, not trying to be a smart @$$ here, but trying to learn something from you fine folks, help me out.
Let's say we have a blind person w/ an incurrable problem for their condition, whatever it may be. Let's further say that said person has a laying on of hands, or a prayer vigil, or some treatment that has a definate God related flair to it. Through whatever means, the person can now see again. So, the first step in this investigation is to have doctors check it out, yes? Where does the process go from there and when does the event become a bona fide miracle?
Thanks in advance.

I think the pope is the only one who can declare something an actual "miracle", however, the colloquial miracle (e.g. it was a "miracle" that the cancer just suddenly went away) is often used to describe something highly improbable.

 

[triadboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Need Some Help w/ Argument

You have evidence of this?

Yeah, I've never seen any report and I can't think of any instance where anyone said they heard God's voice. Oh, they talk to God, but God doesn't answer audibly - because if he did, we could find out if God has a deep voice or a squeeky voice.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So, the first step in this investigation is to have doctors check it out, yes? Where does the process go from there and when does the event become a bona fide miracle?
Thanks in advance.

No... The first step would be to verify that he actually had the condition he was supposedly cured of...

 

[Phil]

Alright, fair enough. Again, not trying to be a smart @$$ here, but trying to learn something from you fine folks, help me out.
Let's say we have a blind person w/ an incurrable problem for their condition, whatever it may be. Let's further say that said person has a laying on of hands, or a prayer vigil, or some treatment that has a definate God related flair to it. Through whatever means, the person can now see again. So, the first step in this investigation is to have doctors check it out, yes? Where does the process go from there and when does the event become a bona fide miracle?
Thanks in advance.

Well, I can't say for sure, not being a medical doctor. But I would suspect that if the scenario were something of interest to the medical community, and they had the time and inclination, they would proceed to perform whatever tests they thought would provide information for understanding the phenomena.

I mean, they know they have an outcome (the patient has recovered), and they would probably begin to investigate how that outcome could happen, starting most probably with testing to see if the original diagnosis was wrong. If that turned out not to be the case, they would look for evidence of other possible cures. We'd have to know the specifics of the case to even speculate.

You should remember, however, that science has no problem with "I don't know". Doctors may indeed never figure out how the patient in your hypothetical case recovered. Science does have a problem with "I don't know, so it must be god".

As to the miracle question: It never becomes a bona fide miracle to someone doing real science. The phenomena can be described as miraculous, in that it instills a sense of awe and wonder, but there is never magic in any scientific conclusion. There's no supernatural, only natural.

 

[Doctor X]

It is an argumentum ad ignorantiam--argument to ignorance.

--J.D.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What Phil said, and to paraphrase what I alluded to above..


I would suggest a miracle ' cure ' more often than not, was a misunderstanding of what the original problem was in the first place..

 

[Batman Jr.]

When making assessments of specific religions using holy texts and the like, numerous logical inconsistencies can be found throughout. This, though, does not destroy the possibility of there being a god, as he/she/it may not have created any of the sets of religious doctrines that we are familiar with.

 

[espritch]

Alright, fair enough. Again, not trying to be a smart @$$ here, but trying to learn something from you fine folks, help me out.
Let's say we have a blind person w/ an incurrable problem for their condition, whatever it may be. Let's further say that said person has a laying on of hands, or a prayer vigil, or some treatment that has a definate God related flair to it. Through whatever means, the person can now see again. So, the first step in this investigation is to have doctors check it out, yes? Where does the process go from there and when does the event become a bona fide miracle?

Well, as Diogenes noted, first you would want to verify that the person was actually blind prior to the healing. You would also want to rule out other possible causes (like laser surgery the day before). If everything checks and alternative explanations can be ruled out, you might want to see if you can repeat the event (i.e. have another healing be performed under properly controlled conditions). Repeatable evidence is something you can work with. A single instance of something unusual is just a curiosity for the most part.

Of course, if no additional healings are forthcoming, you've pretty much reached a dead end. Science cannot declare a miracle. That would require an unprovable assumption (i.e. God did it). Science would have to merely mark it down as "cause undetermined".

 

[Doctor X]

Joe Nickel's wonderful Looking for a Miracle and the Amazing Randi's [PBUH.--Ed.] The Faith Healers are very good references for debunking this stuff.

--J.D.

 

[Art Vandelay]

SkepticalScience

I think everyone here, if presented with incontrvertible evidence, would believe in Gd. But if that evidence is NOT presented, that doesn't necessarily mean that GD doesn't exist, right?

Can someone elegantly point out the flaw in this argument?

Well, technically, there is no flaw. It is correct that just the absence of evidence is not prove of the nonexistence of God. But the implication is that this is somehow a counter to arguments against the existence of God. But I do not argue against God just on the basis of there not being evidence.

Go back to the rocks from the sky. While there are some similarities, the analogy quickly breaks down. Why do rocks fall from the sky? Well, they're in the sky originally, and gravity pulls them down. Basically. They do not come down from the sky in order to give us an incredibly important message. So the fact that they come down without leaving evidence is not at all surprising.

But what about God? Supposedly, He did come down in order to give us an incredibly important message. So the fact that there is no evidence becomes much more important. It kinda calls into question His devotion to bringing his message to the world.

I think the pope is the only one who can declare something an actual "miracle", however, the colloquial miracle (e.g. it was a "miracle" that the cancer just suddenly went away) is often used to describe something highly improbable.

Do you mean that, within the Catholic Church, the pope is the only one, or do you mean that Catholics have a monopoly on the word?

 

[Navigator]

I am not sure what "Pink Unicorns" have to do with this.

Can someone explain?

From what I can gather, none have said what GD 'looks like' just that It possibly exists.

Whereas Pink Unicorns can possibly exist too - but they are 'pink' and 'unicorn'

And probably reside in one of Gd's abundant universes....or even in this one I guess...being that this universe seems rather large and full of possibility.

 

[SGT]

I'm not trying to be ...well, trying. Help me understand what you mean, Benguin. If God could be out there, but no hard evidence points to it, does this mean we should quit investigating claims of miracles, sightings, and other events creditted to God? How does investigating God phenomena differ from investigating other unknown phenomena?

Scientific research implies repeatability. If one scientist claims to have observed a phenomenon, any other scientist, using the same procedures, must be able to obtain the same results. This is possible because the laws of Nature are immutable, even the laws we don't yet fully understand.
Miracles are by definition events contrary to the laws of Nature, so they cannot be repeated. That's why scientists can't investigate miracles.
Science searchs to explain observable phenomena. Pseudoscience searchs to observe unexplainable phenomena.

 

[Benguin]

I am not sure what "Pink Unicorns" have to do with this.

Can someone explain?

From what I can gather, none have said what GD 'looks like' just that It possibly exists.

Whereas Pink Unicorns can possibly exist too - but they are 'pink' and 'unicorn'

And probably reside in one of Gd's abundant universes....or even in this one I guess...being that this universe seems rather large and full of possibility.

It's just a sarcastic response to the proposition that something must exist because YOU cannot prove it does NOT exist.

As in;
A: I believe god is all around me everywhere but we cannot see here or touch him.
B: You cannot prove it so I don't believe you!
A: You cannot prove he isn't all around us, invisible, silent and untouchable. Therefore, you are wrong. He exists.

A: I believe Invisible pink unicorns are all around me everywhere but we cannot see hear or touch them (they are fast moving and dart out the way quick).
B: You cannot prove it so I don't believe you!
A: You cannot prove they are not all around us, invisible, silent and untouchable. Therefore, you are wrong. They exist

 

[Navigator]

It's just a sarcastic response to the proposition that something must exist because YOU cannot prove it does NOT exist.

As in;
A: I believe god is all around me everywhere but we cannot see here or touch him.
B: You cannot prove it so I don't believe you!
A: You cannot prove he isn't all around us, invisible, silent and untouchable. Therefore, you are wrong. He exists.

A: I believe Invisible pink unicorns are all around me everywhere but we cannot see hear or touch them (they are fast moving and dart out the way quick).
B: You cannot prove it so I don't believe you!
A: You cannot prove they are not all around us, invisible, silent and untouchable. Therefore, you are wrong. They exist

Oh I see - did you notice the hint of sarcasm in my question?

I can't 'see' the other side of this universe...no wait! I cant even 'see' the very galaxy I am supposed to be within...but I believe it is pink and resembles a unicorn!



I cant 'see' quantum stuff, but I believe it is there.

I can't 'see' the individuals that communicated with me iver the interent - but I believe they exist.

I can't 'see' any other universes but I believe they exist.

No doubt that the only real danger to any beliefs which are unqualified by hard see-able evidence, is in how it effects our shared reality (Social) If I believed in invisible pink unicorns, no harm until I hold a gun to your head and order you to believe them as well.

I don't 'see' how God could be 'he', and I have reservations that such a belief system is healthy for Society...tradition and history seem to suggest strongely that such beliefs foster agreesion.

But I don;t think that believing that an Intelligent Designer created this universe is dangerous for society, or indeed dangerous for Science to accept.

It is when such beliefs are then humanised (like genderising God) and passed into society as 'irrefutable law' which is dangerous.

If the universe is a reflection of an intelligent designer, then it is a thing of expansion and exploration and discovery, hardly something which can be put in a box and labelled "This Is God"

In other words, the universe is a reflection of something which cannot be ever summerised exclusively as being anything other than expansion.

Boxes are not tools for expansion.

 

[triadboy]

But I don;t think that believing that an Intelligent Designer created this universe is dangerous for society, or indeed dangerous for Science to accept.

The dangerous part arises when someone has to explain to everyone else what the Intelligent Designer wants us to do and think - either because they are in touch with the Designer or they believe someone thousands of years ago was in touch with Him and wrote down His message.

[Beyond that - I can't imagine Science accepting as fact something based on....nothing]

 

[Doctor X]

Navigator:

For some of the things you list, we have evidence. Furthermore, based on what is known, one can make predictions and these things fit the predictions. If they do not, the theory gets changed.

Such does not exist for a deity.

However, I have some conclusions based on the existence . . . or non-existence of a deity . . . which I could re-post, but then most here would start hurling large rocks and bottles.

The other danger of belief in something like ID or quality country-western music without evidence is that it promotes magical thinking which can carryon into other endevors.

--J.D.

 

[Benguin]

Oh I see - did you notice the hint of sarcasm in my question?

Nope, I'm not very good with subtle sarcasm, don't see the point. Better to just state your view in a clear and unambiguous fashion, as far as I can see. My bad.

I can't 'see' the other side of this universe...no wait! I cant even 'see' the very galaxy I am supposed to be within...but I believe it is pink and resembles a unicorn!



I cant 'see' quantum stuff, but I believe it is there.

All of these things can be proved with access to the right equipment and research ... sadly, most of us don't have access and end up falling to trust, which is where I think your point rests. The pink unicorn argument is more one against idle speculation than properly constructed theory. In this case (start of the thread), we have perfectly demonstrable mundane explanations for the phenomona concerned.

I love quantum physics, but it gives me a headache, those pink unicorns leave their hoofprints on my forehead.

I can't 'see' the individuals that communicated with me iver the interent - but I believe they exist.

You could hunt them out and prove it. Trust me, it happens. Aaaaarggghhh!

I can't 'see' any other universes but I believe they exist.

Not thought about that too much, I'm not sure it matters to me. It's interesting, but I concern myself more with this solar system.

No doubt that the only real danger to any beliefs which are unqualified by hard see-able evidence, is in how it effects our shared reality (Social) If I believed in invisible pink unicorns, no harm until I hold a gun to your head and order you to believe them as well.

We can agree on that absolutely. I fully respect and support your right to hold differing views ... the only place we might clash is where it then comes to definitions of secularism.

I don't 'see' how God could be 'he', and I have reservations that such a belief system is healthy for Society...tradition and history seem to suggest strongely that such beliefs foster agreesion.

Oh, don't attach significance to me saying He ... I don't believe in dieties, I could have said it or she just as easily. And I agree with your point.

But I don;t think that believing that an Intelligent Designer created this universe is dangerous for society, or indeed dangerous for Science to accept.

Well science will have to accept it on a scientific basis. It won't be dangerous should it ever do so. I don't disagree with you per se, believing in an intelligent designer would not be dangerous ... believing in something false and forcing that on others I think is (I'm not accusing you of that BTW!). I actually the think the more people can debate and talk about these things rationally and learn from each other (without expecting 'victory' or 'conversion') the safer we'll all be.

It is when such beliefs are then humanised (like genderising God) and passed into society as 'irrefutable law' which is dangerous.

If the universe is a reflection of an intelligent designer, then it is a thing of expansion and exploration and discovery, hardly something which can be put in a box and labelled "This Is God"

Beautiful idea. I disagree with the the premise, but what the hell!

In other words, the universe is a reflection of something which cannot be ever summerised exclusively as being anything other than expansion.

Boxes are not tools for expansion.

Yes, well I think there is no necessity to establish a reason for the universe. It exists.

 

[Benguin]

The other danger of belief in something like ID or quality country-western music without evidence is that it promotes magical thinking which can carryon into other endevors.

I'm going to be contrarian and say Willie Nelson in your general direction ...

[edited to remove reference to non-CW artist]