This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Hell
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
I don't see any conflict with what I've said before and what I'm saying now.
The fact of the matter is, all it would take for me to believe is to see with my own two eyes what Biblical figures got. Namely, a big voice talking to them, saying it was a god, and then proceeding to grant and cure leprosy/raise the dead/feed thousands with five loaves and two fish/send angels down to talk with me/appear in a pillar of fire/turn water into wine/etc.
If biblical figures required first hand evidence, then why don't I get any?
I was born with a skeptic's brain. I have always been a skeptic. I consider it a fundamental part of my nature. If God created me, then he gave me my skeptical brain and if he would send me to Hell for using the skeptical brain that he gave me, then I probably wouldn't want to spend eternity with him anyway.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't see any conflict with what I've said before and what I'm saying now.
The conflict lies in the fact that you're not accepting evidence.
The fact of the matter is, all it would take for me to believe is to see with my own two eyes what Biblical figures got. Namely, a big voice talking to them, saying it was a god, and then proceeding to grant and cure leprosy/raise the dead/feed thousands with five loaves and two fish/send angels down to talk with me/appear in a pillar of fire/turn water into wine/etc.
If biblical figures required first hand evidence, then why don't I get any?
You've given no indication that you would see it as any less than 'unexplainable' by the natural universe, and that believing it was God would be anything other than irrational.
If you really did see all of those, you'd probably blame it on the weed that you were smoking or something. You'd still try to rationalise it.
I've presented evidence of a person who has a mortal disease that would normally take their life in 2 months with no natural (read: medically scientific) chance of recovery. This person and her family prayed to God for her recovery, and her cancer disappeared. But why isn't that enough for you? In your own words:
Anyway, point is, you don't know why the person recovered. It could have been faith healing, it could have been lasagna, it could have been cancer-eating elves.
No, you don't know why there's a big voice talking to you. It could have just been a big booming-voiced elf. There's your inconsistency.
Post by
Skreeran
You've given no indication that you would see it as any less than 'unexplainable' by the natural universe, and that believing it was God would be anything other than irrational.
If you really did see all of those, you'd probably blame it on the weed that you were smoking or something. You'd still try to rationalise it.
I've presented evidence of a person who has a mortal disease that would normally take their life in 2 months with no natural (read: medically scientific) chance of recovery. This person and her family prayed to God for her recovery, and her cancer disappeared. But why isn't that enough for you? In your own words:
Anyway, point is, you don't know why the person recovered. It could have been faith healing, it could have been lasagna, it could have been cancer-eating elves.
No, you don't know why there's a big voice talking to you. It could have just been a big booming-voiced elf. There's your inconsistency.How can you claim to know what I would do? I am not even sure what I would do, much less you.
The difference is, I do not trust people. I do not trust people's word. I do not tend to believe the accoutns of people that seem too fantastic or irrational for belief. It is much easier for me to believe that people are fallible and that they are mistakenly atributing something they do not understand to a supernatural source, while a reasonable explanation does in fact exist.
When I personally experience something, I can see the facts much more clearly, and can form a better opinion on the matter. I do not have to trust someone else's word, something I'm not naturally prone to doing.
Currently, I believe that everything has a reasonable explanation within the laws of nature. I do not believe in ghosts, magic, gods, elves, or any other supernatural things. However, that could be changed, if I were to personally experience something. Perhaps I would rationalize it, perhaps I would accept it. I think it depends on the magnitude of what I experienced. Point is, my mind is not completely closed, but it's going to take more than the Pope canonizing a saint to convince me.
And I have to ask, Squish, do you dislike me or people like me or something? It seems you're being awfully contrary. Whatever thread I go into, you're always on the exact opposite side. You insist that you're merely playing the devil's advocate, but you claim to be agnostic, and I can't think of a single agnostic thing that has come out of your mouth since we've met.
I don't care what you believe, but either you aren't actually an agnostic as you insist you are, or you're simply the most counterproductively argumentative person I've ever met.
Post by
Squishalot
How can you claim to know what I would do?
On the evidence that you're supplying me, of course. You're showing rejection in the face of the very evidence that you've been demanding. You write off said evidence in a demeaning and sarcastic manner, and point out that it could be evidence of faeries or leprechauns or cancer eating elves. Why should you change your tune otherwise?
When I personally experience something, I can see the facts much more clearly, and can form a better opinion on the matter. I do not have to trust someone else's word, something I'm not naturally prone to doing.
That's fair enough. But if someone tells me something crazy and presents a study that backs them up, I will neither trust their word nor reject it outright, I'll go investigate it myself. Like all the Googling that I've done to find evidence for you for the canonisation claims.
If you close your eyes to the world and cover your ears, you'll never experience anything. Go out and do some research.
Point is, my mind is not completely closed, but it's going to take more than the Pope canonizing a saint to convince me.
If that's what you think I was presenting, then you've missed the point - the fact that it's documented as part of a canonisation is irrelevant - it's the fact that there is what appears to be a faith-based healing. The canonisation side is just what brings it into the media for us to see.
And I have to ask, Squish, do you dislike me or people like me or something? It seems you're being awfully contrary. Whatever thread I go into, you're always on the exact opposite side. You insist that you're merely playing the devil's advocate, but you claim to be agnostic, and I can't think of a single agnostic thing that has come out of your mouth since we've met.
You hate religious people. I disapprove of bigots of any type, including both religious and non-religious people. Nothing against you personally, but I am very against your views, which often appear to me to have very little basis for argument.
Take this issue of canonisation. I'm presenting evidence for you and offering you the chance to investigate it yourself. You complain that there aren't any details on the patient, I find you a patient with public details, news articles and interviews with her. You complain that the investgation is biased by evangelists, I find you the document that the Catholic Church uses to conduct its investigation and the burden of proof required for it to be classified as faith based healing. You complain that there isn't a direct link between God and the healing, and that it could be elves, and I point out that (as required by the Church), there is a direct link between the commencement of prayers and symbols, and the recovery.
And after all that, you still refuse to consider any of it as 'valid' evidence for the possible existence of God, because only now, you point out that the only valid evidence of supernatural events has to be personally perceived evidence on your part. Oh wait, Funden has his own personal evidence, but no, that's just irrational belief, because it's him, not you. Hypocrisy.
What makes me agnostic is the fact that I'm open to all this as evidence. I'm willing to consider that there is a supernatural force that can heal, harm, influence people. I believe that, as theologians, the Catholic Church does a very thorough job of identifying faith-based healing 'miracles', backed up by plenty of 'unexplainable' evidence, and this makes sense - their reputation is on the line. To me, any time that science can't explain something that can reasonably be accredited to God (by causal evidence, such as praying and recovery, as opposed to static 'evidence' like the creation of the universe), I'll take that as evidence for the existence of a god.
I don't care what you believe, but either you aren't actually an agnostic as you insist you are, or you're simply the most counterproductively argumentative person I've ever met.
Says the person who asked me to provide evidence for the canonisation claim, only to ignore it all.
Post by
Skreeran
I didn't ignore it all, I just find it to be too circumstantial, and I simply find it too fantastically unlikely to believe it without question.
I naturally don't trust people, as I said, even when they are claiming things that
do
fit within the laws of nature. When they claims things that do not, I am even less prone to believing them.
As I've said before, just because you cannot explain why this person was healed, does not mean that it was God. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. I don't believe in magic, and it would take a great deal to make me.
Anyway, I'm tired and I'm going to sleep now.
Post by
Squishalot
I didn't ignore it all, I just find it to be too circumstantial, and I simply find it too fantastically unlikely to believe it without question.
It's fine to question, but get up and actually question it! Don't just sit on your backside and ask people to spoonfeed you evidence and spit it out at the end. I linked a book for you to check out - how about looking at it and telling me what you find in there?
I naturally don't trust people, as I said, even when they are claiming things that do fit within the laws of nature. When they claims things that do not, I am even less prone to believing them.
Yes, but you're being apathetic, meaning that you shouldn't have any right to criticise it. If you actually went out and looked at it for yourself and came to that conclusion, I'd have a bit more respect for your view.
Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.
Do you understand how everything in science works, things that you take for granted? Do you know how your microwave heats up food, or how power is transmitted to your house, or even how your messages appear online for me to argue with? Do you understand the process of manufacturing steel, or should you instead question the strength of the materials that make up your car?
Correlation does not mean causation, but in related events that occur chronologically, it's a strong indicator.
Oh, and going back again:
And I have to ask, Squish, do you dislike me or people like me or something? It seems you're being awfully contrary. Whatever thread I go into, you're always on the exact opposite side.
It's a refreshing change from taking the anti-Christian view when arguing with Hyperspacerebel. Go take a look at the 'Questions for a Catholic' thread if you want to see the other side of me. Maybe in the morning, perhaps.
I can't think of a single agnostic thing that has come out of your mouth since we've met.
I'd like to see you find a Christian who would happily compare their religion to The Sims.
Post by
Skreeran
It's fine to question, but get up and actually question it! Don't just sit on your backside and ask people to spoonfeed you evidence and spit it out at the end. I linked a book for you to check out - how about looking at it and telling me what you find in there?I don't think that's what I'm doing at all. I'm just saying that I think that there is a rational, non-magical explanation for everything, and it is you who seem driven to show me evidence that won't even convince me.
Do you understand how everything in science works, things that you take for granted? Do you know how your microwave heats up food, or how power is transmitted to your house, or even how your messages appear online for me to argue with? Do you understand the process of manufacturing steel, or should you instead question the strength of the materials that make up your car?I actually do understand all of those things, ironically enough.
I try to learn and understand everything I encounter. If I don't understand it, I research it. I know how disease works. I have some understanding of how cancer comes about. I know how chemotherapy and radiation therapy are said to work.
What I do not understand, however, is how you expect me to believe that cancer can just magically disappear overnight without any biological or physical cause at all.
When I see a contradiction between medical science, my first though is not that the laws of nature have changed, or that something outside the laws of nature has happened. My first thought is that humans screwed up somewhere along the line. No, I can't tell you where they screwed up, but I find it much more reasonable to pin the contradiction on human error than on a violation of the laws of physics. Whether she was misdiagnosed or we just don't understand as much about the human body and disease as we think we do, I am much more prone to believing that everything "unexplainable" has an unseen explanation, rather than accepting that the laws of reality have been violated.
Basically, instead of believing that the cancer magically disappeared, I wonder if there is any conceivable explanation that does not violate everything we know about the universe and biology? If there is (and there almost certainly is, I think, even if we haven't discovered it yet), then I find it more likely that that is the case, rather than magic.
I'd like to see you find a Christian who would happily compare their religion to The Sims.I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Post by
Heckler
Basically, instead of believing that the cancer magically disappeared, I wonder if there is any conceivable explanation that does not violate everything we know about the universe and biology? If there is (and there almost certainly is, I think, even if we haven't discovered it yet), then I find it more likely that that is the case, rather than magic.
This is a pretty good definition for the word 'Science' and we should all be thankful that through the years Mankind (at least over the last 300 years) has not been content to simply explain away the mysteries of the world as divine providence. Scientific progress demands that you refuse to accept "magic" as the answer to any question.
"Evidence" of God, in a scientific sense, would not only mean something that can be explained by God's existence, but can also accurately predict and describe future behavior as well... if we assume that God works miracles on a case-by-case non-predictable basis, then its likely not possible to "prove" the existence of God with Reason or Science. Since most Atheists hold Reason, Logic, and Science in the highest regard, you'll likely not be convincing any Atheists to convert by showing them "proof" or "evidence" in the form of "miracles."
Post by
Monday
Squish... why do you even bother?
"Evidence" of God, in a scientific sense, would not only mean something that can be explained by God's existence, but can also accurately predict and describe future behavior as well... if we assume that God works miracles on a case-by-case non-predictable basis, then its likely not possible to "prove" the existence of God with Reason or Science. Since most Atheists hold Reason, Logic, and Science in the highest regard, you'll likely not be convincing any Atheists to convert by showing them "proof" or "evidence" in the form of "miracles."
I don't want to convert them so much as to stop having them dismiss my evidence out of hand, insult me and call all religious people stupid for believing. That is all I am trying to get at.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
That's the thing. Nobody is using it as evidence to persuade the world, they're using it as evidence to show why *they* believe. It's the personalised miracle that Skreeran was saying would take him to believe. Irrespective of whether the rest of the world would see him as some druggo high on weed.
I highlighted these things to point out that it's not just the placebo effect (which atheists seem driven to argue) that results in so-called faith-based healing, that people actually get better in ways that are inexplicable, and that science doesn't have all the answers in these cases (which atheists also seem driven to argue).
Whether she was misdiagnosed or we just don't understand as much about the human body and disease as we think we do,
She wasn't misdiagnosed. Again - lung cancer patients who get better are often misdiagnosed and actually have pneumonia. Where you have a tumor that spreads to the brain, you know that it's cancer.
I am much more prone to believing that everything "unexplainable" has an unseen explanation, rather than accepting that the laws of reality have been violated.
The idea that the world was flat, or that the earth is at the center of the universe, these were the 'laws of reality' at the time. The 'laws of reality', as you call them, have been violated many times over in history, and the laws rewritten.
Basically, instead of believing that the cancer magically disappeared, I wonder if there is any conceivable explanation that does not violate everything we know about the universe and biology? If there is (and there almost certainly is, I think, even if we haven't discovered it yet), then I find it more likely that that is the case, rather than magic.
Solar eclipses, as defined and understood by modern standards, broke the laws of reality for thousands of years of civilisation. If you went back in time by two thousand years and presented said explanations and insisted you were right, you'd be laughed at and persecuted for being an idiot.
Since most Atheists hold Reason, Logic, and Science in the highest regard, you'll likely not be convincing any Atheists to convert by showing them "proof" or "evidence" in the form of "miracles."
Without trying to convert anyone to agnosticism, would it be reasonable or logical to blindly assume that the natural universe will provide answers to inexplicable things? Because faith in the laws of nature in the absence of any evidence (and there is no medical or scientific evidence of why the patients get better) sound almost as irrational as faith in God.
The evidence presented by Faith based healing seems compelling enough, until you factor in the hundreds or thousands or however many people who get sick, pray, have others pray for them, and die anyways... I've seen it happen plenty of times in my years of church membership.
If it was good, sound evidence it would be repeatable... it's not that you evidence is being dismissed, it isn't consistent enough. If something happens 1 time out of 100, it isn't the answer .. it's the exception.
This is partially why I'm agnostic. Strange, inexplicable things happen that might point at there being a god. But the religious argument of "pray and you will be cured" obviously doesn't work. But that, in itself, is a strawman. It's like a medical treatment that works 1% of the time, and the other 99%, the patient dies. You can't take away from the fact that the treatment worked every now and then. It's not a good treatment, definitely, but it wouldn't stop mortally ill patients from trying it as a 'last ditch attempt'. And the 1% who do survive will sing its praises, undoubtably.
Post by
Skreeran
I'm going to stop arguing about faith-healing now. I'm never going to change your mind and you cannot possibly do what is necessary to change mine. We're getting nowhere.
Point is, I believe that everything has a explanation. An explanation that is more than just "a wizard/elf/god did it, no further questions needed." If we cannot find it, that's our problem, not a problem with the laws of reality. Whether we completely understand them or not, I firmly believe that everything can be explained and elaborated and uncovered and understood. Perhaps we don't understand everything yet, but that doesn't mean that everything we don't understand should automatically be attributed to magic.
Post by
Monday
Point is, I believe that everything has a explanation. An explanation that is more than just "a wizard/elf/god did it, no further questions needed." If we cannot find it, that's our problem, not a problem with the laws of reality. Whether we completely understand them or not, I firmly believe that everything can be explained and elaborated and uncovered and understood. Perhaps we don't understand everything yet, but that doesn't mean that everything we don't understand should automatically be attributed to magic.
This bugs me. It's not often that we attribute anything to "magic" anymore, and we constantly strive to find new things. There are things we attribute to the power of God, but those are often misdiagnosed, for lack of a better word.
And please, stop comparing my faith to elves and magic, it's *!@#ing me off.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm going to stop arguing about faith-healing now. I'm never going to change your mind and you cannot possibly do what is necessary to change mine. We're getting nowhere.
I don't see why we're getting nowhere. I acknowledge that there may be hidden variables that we can't see that cause the cancer cure. I think that it's equally as plausible (or implausible) as a hidden god. I don't understand why you would believe one over the other.
Point is, I believe that everything has a explanation. An explanation that is more than just "a wizard/elf/god did it, no further questions needed." If we cannot find it, that's our problem, not a problem with the laws of reality. Whether we completely understand them or not, I firmly believe that everything can be explained and elaborated and uncovered and understood. Perhaps we don't understand everything yet, but that doesn't mean that everything we don't understand should automatically be attributed to magic.
It's not that you believe everything has an explanation, it's that you believe that God isn't an explanation. I don't think it's ever that no further questions are needed. I'm fairly certain that church leaders will still endeavour to work out why God chose a particular person to be healed, and see if they can learn from that. I think the 'scientific' approach of deciding that it's inexplicable and throwing their hands in the air and moving on is more useless than the Church's attempt to dig deeper into the issue.
But moving away from faith-based healing, again, faith in the laws of nature in the absence of evidence is just as irrational as faith in God. All theories of quantum randomness have just as much evidential basis as a supernatural deity does, yet one is considered by atheists as a valid theory, and the other is considered as irrational.
Edit: Oh wait, no quantum randomness must be MAGIC!
Post by
Heckler
Because faith in the laws of nature in the absence of any evidence (and there is no medical or scientific evidence of why the patients get better) sound almost as irrational as faith in God.
Yes, if anyone had said "The patient got better because <insert something that coincides with well established laws of nature, physics, and reality>" with no evidence to support the opinion and that was the end of their argument -- that
WOULD
be equally irrational.
But no one is saying that. What was said was more along the lines of "a rational explanation likely exists, but we shouldn't conclude anything until we have sufficient evidence to do so -- and until we find that evidence, we should continue looking for it."
Post by
Monday
"a rational explanation likely exists, but we shouldn't conclude anything until we have sufficient evidence to do so -- and until we find that evidence, we should continue looking for it."
The thing is though, you don't consider religion rational while 2,000,000,000+ people do.
Thus what some may consider rational others do not. God doesn't exist, WTF? You believe in Faith healing, WTF?
Post by
Heckler
The thing is though, you don't consider religion rational while 2,000,000,000+ people do.
I never said I didn't consider religion rational. My point was that you can't
prove
that God did it. You can only disprove that other things did. So the rational process to prove it was God OR to prove it wasn't would be to continue to attempt to prove it.
My point is, there's no number of "other possibilities" that can be crossed off the list which suddenly makes a conclusion of divine intervention (or a "laws of nature" explanation) possible. You don't conclude things you don't understand deductively, because you can't then go on to prove your deduction, which is the crucial step (although the "laws of nature" explanation probably
would
be provable, whereas the divine intervention explanation likely cannot be "proven" because God probably doesn't act in a predictable-by-humans way).
The only possible proof of Divine Providence would be a personal Revelation by God himself, and that only functions for the person to whom the Revelation is made.
I'm not saying it's wrong to say "God probably did it" and then keep looking; anymore than it is to say "There's probably a provable explanation for this" and keep looking. What's irrational is when you come to either of these conclusions without proof, and then you accept that as proof enough, and stop.
This means that by my definition, "faith" is necessarily irrational -- but to me, that's always been what made it "faith" in the first place.
Post by
Squishalot
Because faith in the laws of nature in the absence of any evidence (and there is no medical or scientific evidence of why the patients get better) sound almost as irrational as faith in God.
Yes, if anyone had said "The patient got better because <insert something that coincides with well established laws of nature, physics, and reality>" with no evidence to support the opinion and that was the end of their argument -- that
WOULD
be equally irrational.
But no one is saying that. What was said was more along the lines of "a rational explanation likely exists, but we shouldn't conclude anything until we have sufficient evidence to do so -- and until we find that evidence, we should continue looking for it."
There's limited evidence pointing to a faith-based heal - recovery only occurs after a significant religious prayer or action, hence the conclusion for it being faith-based. Where inexplicable things have occured and there is no religious action, it's not treated as a faith-based heal, it's a generic 'miracle'. Canonisation claims have been rejected in the past, I believe, where there aren't sufficient religious grounds to call it as faith-based healing.
So with limited correlational evidence for the faith-based heal, and no evidence for a scientific-based heal, what would you reasonably conclude? Yes, we don't know truly what happened, but we can chalk this one up to the God-believers for now, if we have to score points.
I'm not saying it's wrong to say "God probably did it" and then keep looking; anymore than it is to say "There's probably a provable explanation for this" and keep looking. What's irrational is when you come to either of these conclusions without proof, and then you accept that as proof enough, and stop.
The Catholic Church does spend more time looking for answers than the medical scientists do. That's why it devotes huge resources to bring up 'cold cases' for the sake of validating canonisation claims.
Post by
Heckler
So with limited correlational evidence for the faith-based heal, and no evidence for a scientific-based heal,
what would you reasonably conclude?
You wouldn't.
You don't have enough proof to make a conclusion either way.
The proper course is to keep looking.
The Catholic Church does spend more time looking for answers than the medical scientists do. That's why it devotes huge resources to bring up 'cold cases' for the sake of validating canonisation claims.
If the cases need "validation," then they were not sufficiently proven to begin with.
Post by
Squishalot
So with limited correlational evidence for the faith-based heal, and no evidence for a scientific-based heal,
what would you reasonably conclude?
You wouldn't.
You don't have enough proof to make a conclusion either way.
The proper course is to keep looking.
Just because you can't 'prove' that the correlation was actually causation? Can you prove to me any causation?
The Catholic Church does spend more time looking for answers than the medical scientists do. That's why it devotes huge resources to bring up 'cold cases' for the sake of validating canonisation claims.
If the cases need "validation," then they were not sufficiently proven to begin with.
I think you misunderstand. Claims are claims. The Church investigates said claims to validate them before accepting them as miracles.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.