CADRE Comments

A Rational Look at Christianity; Basing Reason in Truth

In response to the documented miracles that I put up atheists have had two basic responses, which of cousre I knew were coming. These amount to (1) circular reasoning: (2) raising the bar. This entials embarkation down a path of excuses designed to demand a higher level of proof everytime the previous level has been met. In the comment Box Dave Ellis says:

So the question remains:

What is more probable? That the lab made an error or that a person was magically healed.



In other words, how could my world view possibly be wrong? Anything that threatens to challenge my world must be wrong, therefore, no evdience can ever count against my world view. Thus any alleged evidence but be wrong and so can be disregarded.


Which do you think occur more frequently? Human error or miracles.

That's why the subject of amputees and facial disfigurement is far from a red herring.



Of cousre any evidence that counts against the atheist world view has to be a mistake of documentation because after all, they can't be wrong, that would mean they are going to hell we can't have that.

The rare few cases where an extraordinary miraculous healing is claimed never seem to be things that are obvious to any observer and impossible to misdiagnose (you'd have to be a pretty incompetent doctor to misdiagnose a missing arm). Instead we get lots of cancers that went away and things where its possible that they were misdiagnosed in the first place or where the doctors were simply in error about how severe the condition was.



Of course such a statement is total poppy cock since cancer was always understood to be incurable until people started suriving it. Then all healings were remission until we medical evidence that remission doesn't mean vanishing symptoms that go away over ngiht with no trace. Then it became not good enough because it could have been misdiagnosed. It doesn't matter how good the evidence is that it wasn't so, since the mere fact of alleged miracle must be construed as proof of misdiagnosis and much never never never be construed as proof of a miracle since that would mean the unthinkable might be true. So now we go down this winding path of a thousands excuses.

As to commenting on the actual cases, as I said before, we have far too little detail provided.


I was quoting out of a book. Shall I post the whole book on the blog? The details are recorded at Lourdes. But of course actually researching is out of the question.

If Hinman wants to pick his favorite and then provide some real detail about it then we can discuss it. On the short summaries he's provided so far though there's really not much that can be said other than what I've already done---point out general problems that claims of miraculous healing need to surmount for us to be reasonably convinced they really occur.



Of course if I did that it wouldn't be good enough. It's not a limb growing back, if it was a limb growing back then its' not the stars spelling out Jesus' name. If it was the stars spelling out Jesus name it would not be seen that way from the other end of the galaxy or would be meaningless to people not from earth, so it has to be just a huge coincidence.

Another atheist sums up the comments:

5/04/2009 07:12:00 AM
Delete
Anonymous CallMeIrresponsible said...

1. No miracle healings occur for conditions that would be *absolutely impossible* to heal without divine intervention (amputation, etc.).

2. Miracle healings are only claimed for conditions that human error or statistics could explain.

3. Therefore, miracles are a superfluous explanation.

5/04/2009 03:03:00 PM


Actually that's not as bad a recommendation as you think. The idea that miracle are superfluous, that's not such a bad thing to think. After all, there are no en stances of the word "miracle" being used in the Bible. We have stories where amazing things happen, but not suggestion that such things will always happen. Now i"m pushing my old Church of Chrsit line that I grew up with, "miracles have ceased." What I'm really suggesting is that we need to actually re-define what we mean by the term "miracle." After all my answer on the theodicy problem is that God allows pain, suffering and evil because he wants us to search for truth. He can't really spill the beans and make his existence because doubt, if that were the case there would be no reason to search for truth. So to get us to search, the answers are there, but they are not so obvious that we don't have to look for them. We can find them, but they are not spelled out.

The reason for this is simple, it's because God wants us to internalize the values of the Good. The values of the good are important to hold, and we must internalize them because merely giving lip service to them will not affect the heart. The heart is the seat of the spiritual battle ground. This is the basic reason for free will (for those of us who are Armenians) and it is the reason God allows evil, pain and suffering.If everytime something bad happened it was instantly stopped, healed, reversed, or made better we would not seek truth, we would not seek God, we would make lip service and fear doing wrong and resent God.

So the answers are there, they can be found, but we have to seek them. God does do things in the world but he doesn't always do them in an obvious manner. So we can assume God is at work in our lives but we need not always be able to prove that he is to others who don't understand it. After all the skeptic is not searching, he's working hard to keep from searching. He doesn't want to internalize the values of the good, he wants to be autonomous and to promote his own values. For those who don't get it may seem totally stupid to believe soemthing that isn't proved, but there you have it. We don't always need this kind of proof.



We need to understand that God does not have to do impossible things that could not be done to be doing things in our lives. We don't need to prove that god is doing things in our lives to know that he is. Be that as it may there are some instances, some documented, some anecdotal, that serve as hints for those who are willing to take them. But I guarantee you beyond any any doubt no level of evdience will ever cause these atheists to cease their Constantin excuse making. Whether one says "we don't need miracles lets forget them" or "miracles happen" either course sends the atheist in to a rage if one still believes in God in spite of inability to prove. Yet no matter how good the evidence the atheist is never satisfied.


Take for example the statement above: "No miracle healings occur for conditions that would be *absolutely impossible* to heal without divine intervention (amputation, etc.)." Here's a case that contradicts such an assertion:

Take the case of Charles Ann:

this story was on the net on a certain website at one time. It has sense been taken off that site but I can site when I found it. There is still reference to it on that site but not where it used to be and not the same test that I quoted when I first found it.

Society for the Little Flower (Website) FAQ (visited 6/3/01)
St. Theresse of Lisieux


The second cure involved Charles Anne, a 23 year old seminarian who was dying from advanced pulmonary tuberculosis. The night he thought he was dying, Charles prayed to Therese. Afterward, the examining doctor testified, "The destroyed and ravaged lungs had been replaced by new lungs, carrying out their normal functions and about to revive the entire organism. A slight emaciation persists, which will disappear within a few days under a regularly assimilated diet." These two miracles resulted in Therese becoming beatified."


Now I'm sure the excuse will be made "there aren't enough details." No there aren't. This is not meant to be exhaustive proof. Any apologist would be an idiot to think he's going to find many kind of proof that can just cause someone to believe just by reading it on a blog! Its' a starting point. It's a place to begin looking. In fact you can order copies of the x-rays from the Saint making committee. So I was told in email by a member of the Lourdes medical committee. I have not be able to do it so far. Nevertheless the x-rays do exist and one can research it further.

Let's watch the excuses come rolling in. This is something the atheists need to get their minds around: when nothing ever counts against your position you have not make it more secure you have demonstrated it's bankruptcy. The call for evidence of miracles is useless because nothing can ever count as a miracle. Anything evidence offered is automatically discounted merely because it is evdience of a miracle. Like Ellis said "what's more likely?" well if you refuse to ever believe and you and you have an emotional bias against belief then of course it's less likely that any sort of evidence will ever count as evidence. But then it doesn't prove anything that there is no evdience because nothing ever could be evidence.

O but of cousre, amputation growing back would be. That's the only one that ever would be? What about a new pair of lungs, why is that not just as good? O well of cousre that's not an amputation growing back so it must be wrong. But then remember what I said about it cant' be too obvious? Where's the search if god is beyond doubt? But the atheists can't have this because they want to be forced. If you can't compel them to believe then it's too much trouble to search.

Lungs growing back over night are just as amazing at a severed limb growing back, but a bit less obvious so not as great a bean spiller. But just watch what they do with this one.

(1) not enough detail

(2) I want those x-rays they will say!

O when the excuses come marching in!

24 comments:

J.L., I'm an Independent Christian Church guy, it's nice to see more restoration flavor on the net.

And I'm definitely not a cessationist, that was a reaction in doctrine, IMHO.

The question of whether the supposed medical documentation involved error when investigating supposed miraculous healings is not only a legitimate question to raise. Its an essential one---at least for anyone who actually wants to know the truth of the matter.

And in this entire post you have not even bothered to address that problem---you've simply complained, in effect, that we aren't sufficiently credulous for your liking.

lol I was raised in the mian line c of c. that means pro sundayschool, multi-cup, non instrumental, a mil. But as a teenager I became an atheist and my parents became charismatics. They began going to a "progressive" C of C in Dallas, one of the new breed where people sought the gifts and they didn't think they were the only true church.

I got saved when I was 23 (1979) and I began going to the church my parents were going to, the progressive C of C. Since then I have become a Methodist and went to Perkins school of theology SMU.

I still have some affinities for my upbringing in that I like the congregational setting and the free will assumptions are just part of my being.

Hey Dave. you put this up as I wrote my answer to the previous.The question of whether the supposed medical documentation involved error when investigating supposed miraculous healings is not only a legitimate question to raise. Its an essential one---at least for anyone who actually wants to know the truth of the matter.


Yes it is a valid question. I was not saying it wasn't. But I think there's enough documentation there to assume the bop is on you to show there is a problem. Just assuming as a matter of course that there must be a problem because you have no other answer is not an answer.And in this entire post you have not even bothered to address that problem---you've simply complained, in effect, that we aren't sufficiently credulous for your liking.


I've documented in the previous one and I've documented the good stuff from Lourdes so many times it should be a standard assumption.5/05/2009 06:40:00 AM

RCC has two miracle committees that investigate such claims: (1) Lourdes; (2) saint making commitee. These are basically the same committees and they go by the same rules.

The rules are well known to be very strong. Lourdes miracles are the best documented in the world. they use medical experts from all over the Europe, the top medical people on that continent. They use skeptics on the committee. They have their own pier reviewed academic journal.

The have rules designed to screen out possible remission, so for example they don't allow certain kinds of cancer for ten years after the alleged healing because they know the remission rates and take them into account.

The patienter cannot have treated the condition with medicine before, which cuts way way down on who they can even look at.

these strident rules are why they only have 65 official miracles, and 4,000 "remarkable" cases. The remarkable are those who almost make it but just don't squeak by the technicalities.

Yes, we should accept as reliable the conclusions of a committee created by an organization whose livelihood depends on peoples belief in the supernatural.

And should I believe the conclusions of a committee formed by the American Association of Professional Psychics to draw conclusions about the existence of paranormal powers?

These arguments from miracles are ready made to convince people who already believe.

You just don't get it, do you, Ellis? This committee's job is RULE OUT as many would-be miracles as it possibly can. They don't NEED to convince ANYONE of the existence of the supernatural, people do that anyway. Their purpose is to make sure church authorities don't look like idiots by calling something a miracle when it's not. If their only job is to keep people believing in the supernatural they would have verified far more miracles than they actually have, which is quite a small number compared to the total alleged cases.

Wow. And I actually thought atheists were interested in looking seriously at the evidence. The minute you present concrete, in-your-face empirical evidence they give all these a priori reasons why they don't accept it.

This committee's job is RULE OUT as many would-be miracles as it possibly can.
Sure it is. And by claiming that they excluded thousands it sounds, to the credulous, like the cases they accepted must be the real deal.

Wow. And I actually thought atheists were interested in looking seriously at the evidence. The minute you present concrete, in-your-face empirical evidence they give all these a priori reasons why they don't accept it.
Except of course, that such evidence has not yet been presented. I specifically asked that more detail be provided so that we could look at the claim in depth. So far that has not been done. Instead there has simply been a lot of complaining that our standards of evidence aren't low enough to suit you.

JD,

Why would they need evidence when they know its impossible?

Yes, we should accept as reliable the conclusions of a committee created by an organization whose livelihood depends on peoples belief in the supernatural.


Atheist assumption about the nature of belief; based upon personal animocity and not facts; masking the informal fallacy of guilt by assocition.

The committee is independent.
And should I believe the conclusions of a committee formed by the American Association of Professional Psychics to draw conclusions about the existence of paranormal powers?


The committee is made up of doctors, including skeptics. IT does not have any Bishops on it and its independent; the church can't remove them.These arguments from miracles are ready made to convince people who already believe.

IF they meed rigid rules which require medical evdience for everthing.

you are not addressing the Casdroph stuff which has no affiliation with a church of any kind.

Except of course, that such evidence has not yet been presented. I specifically asked that more detail be provided so that we could look at the claim in depth. So far that has not been done. Instead there has simply been a lot of complaining that our standards of evidence aren't low enough to suit you.


It's unfair and unrealistic to expect me to be a medical library. I am not the vatican.I don't have Charles Anns x-rays. I've tried to get them and that's a very involved process. I have even less pull with the RCC hierarhcy than I with the U.S. government.

your assumptions are clearly clutching at straws. your world view has been blown apart.

the x-rays exist, they show the lungs grew back over night. nothing you can do about it.

It's unfair and unrealistic to expect me to be a medical library. I am not the vatican.I don't have Charles Anns x-rays. I've tried to get them and that's a very involved process. I have even less pull with the RCC hierarhcy than I with the U.S. government.
How is it my fault that you lack the evidence to support your claims?

Does the Vatican not have internet access? Are they incapable of putting up this information for all to see and be convinced by? If the evidence is so compelling why are they so reticent to make it easily available to the public? Surely the ones healed would be glad to make the records necessary to give evidence for their miraculous healing available---if they actually supported the contention that a miracle occurred so well as is claim.

the x-rays exist, they show the lungs grew back over night. nothing you can do about it.
I'm interested in actual evidence. Not idle claims. And how is it you're so convinced of these things if you, by your own admission, don't have the means to look into the evidence in detail?

CallMeIrrespsonsible said...

Ya gotta love the Google.

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=10539

The first crack in the wall is appearing.

CallMeIrresponsible said...

More info from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau

The doctors only proclaim "medically inexplicable," which leaves itself open to a God-of-the-gaps debunking.

"For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:

The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt

The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)

The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)

The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)

The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)

The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

t's unfair and unrealistic to expect me to be a medical library. I am not the vatican.I don't have Charles Anns x-rays. I've tried to get them and that's a very involved process. I have even less pull with the RCC hierarhcy than I with the U.S. government.

How is it my fault that you lack the evidence to support your claims?

I don't lack evdience I gave it. you don't want evdience, you want to keep raising the bar. Just you demand more details from Casdroph have you made any effort to get the book yet? You want to act like my noting the x-rays actually in my handing is a failing in the evidence, and yet when you can get pictures of them (they are in the book) you don't make any effort to do so.Does the Vatican not have internet access?


It's crap. you know how bad European internet is. Are they incapable of putting up this information for all to see and be convinced by?

I don't know why they don't put it up. they don't answer to me. But the fact that they don't is not any kind of real proof that its' not true. Its' actually argument from silence. The basic existence of it has been attested to. You can't give me a reason to doubt it other than you don't want to believe it.If the evidence is so compelling why are they so reticent to make it easily available to the public?

who says they are resistant? They haven't refussed to. It's more like they are too stupid. I can't get to the proper people, it's very beurocratic. They are all priests and stuff. Priests can't figure out my I shouldn't just be content to have faith. I say "because I want to prove to atheists" they say "O forget them they don't want to believe, don't bother with that!

Mind you, those are not the guys in charge. those are the guys with the web site who talk about St. Teresa. They are not the people in charge of the x-ray.
Surely the ones healed would be glad to make the records necessary to give evidence for their miraculous healing available---if they actually supported the contention that a miracle occurred so well as is claim.


they have. the committee has more detailed descriptions of each case and I did obtain them from the committee by snail mail> I've been meaning to put them on my site for years but lost them in moving.

less detailed descriptions are on my site. Get the Casdroph book. He devotes a whole chapter to each person and shows the xrays.
the x-rays exist, they show the lungs grew back over night. nothing you can do about it.

I'm interested in actual evidence. Not idle claims.

I'm interested in logic not excuses. If you had the x-rays you would just complain about their quality then you would conclude "that can't happen therefore it didn't." And how is it you're so convinced of these things if you, by your own admission, don't have the means to look into the evidence in detail?


I will tell you why:

(1) on July 19, 1979 I was knocked rom a sitting postion to my feet out of my chair by a force of energy descending from the ceiling and flowing through my body that changed my life forever. It began the moment I said "thank you Jesus for giving me the baptism of the Holy Spirit" and it went on for two hours during which time my palms burned, my hands were pulled toward the ceiling by a force that felt like magnetism and I began to speak in languages I did not know. From that night on I have had a burning desire to lead people to God.

(1) On Christmas Eve 1998 my father had a major heart attack at which time he died and was dead for eleven minutes. I didn't know that but I did know that he was very ill. I sat up praying with the Pope's midnight mass (forgetting it was recorded earlier) I prayed with eh Pope for the healing of my father. of course he was on tape. That night I dreamed the Pope came to me and with father and told me he would be ok. My father looked great he was wearing a new suit.

When I woke up the next morning I fully expected him to be dead. I went to the hosptial and a nurse came up and said "did you hear about th miracle, the whole intensive care is buzzing about it?" I said "what miracle?" she said "Your father died and came back." The doctor came in I ask him "would you actually use the word miracle." he said "yes, for the first time in my practice I actually use the word, miracle." He explained not so much because he came back to life as becasue his heart started back up with arrhythmia and not weak an disconcerting but booming like that of an athlete. He said "89 year old men just don't come back so strong and rgular its' really unheard of."

I thought about it and as near as I can figure out that happened at the same time the night before that I was praying with recorded midnight mass.

(3) During the following three years where took care of my father we had the ER guys in so often I joked about getting them coffee cups with their names on them. One time when they came he seemed to really be a gonner. He was having some kind of heart attack and the vital signs were very bad and they were checking him out. My mother and I and my brother liad hands on him and began to pray and as we prayed the ER guys saw the readings change.

the er guys were going "what is happening!" One said "this isn't supposed to be!" They were freaking out. Latter they told me, You don't see that. Not the way it happens. Someone having a major attack doesn't just stop having and you don't see the readings change as you are taking them. By the time they left he felt fine.

Now there's a lot be considered. I am not saying that of this is conclusive proof. But it should be enough to make a starting point. But you are even willing to consider that much. you want to sweep it way as though it means nothing it blows your world view wide open.

but because of the things I've seen (and this is just part of it--I have more stories) I am wiling at least consider the possibility that the Lourdes miracles are real.

I don't think you are willing to consider it. I thing that's because you have a vested interest in the atheist party line.

More info from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau

you want real evdience and docs but this is not a credible source.The doctors only proclaim "medically inexplicable," which leaves itself open to a God-of-the-gaps debunking.


No it's not! Of cousre they can't prove it's a miralce. Even a guy in a whtie robe appeared with nail prints in his hands and raised soemone form the dead you would still say it's not proof. You would say "how do you know that's the same guy in the bible?" I'm sure a million years into hell half the atheists will be saying "O this illusion will end any minute now."

It's not god of the baps it's the only responsible scientifically valid way to test miracles. All you can do is say it's inexplicable. you can't explain it if its' inexplicable. you can't prove God did it, the best you can ever dos is "that's wired and nothing we know explains it."

But if the only thing that might be construed as causality is prayer than it's logical to assume it's a miracle.
"For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:

The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt

The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)

The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)

The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)

The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)

The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)


that's right and they meet that criteria. Everyone of those official miracles and the 4000 remarkable cases has met that criteria or they would not be considered further.

CallMeIrresponsible said...

JL Hinman:
"Of cousre they can't prove it's a miralce."

I think you're not saying this sarcastically, but I'm not sure. If this is what you believe, then you've just admitted the miracle isn't proved.

"Even a guy in a whtie robe appeared with nail prints in his hands and raised soemone form the dead you would still say it's not proof. "

If that actually happened, it would be a fact. But the question is whether it actually happened. So your approach here leads us nowhere.

"It's not god of the baps it's the only responsible scientifically valid way to test miracles. All you can do is say it's inexplicable. you can't explain it if its' inexplicable. you can't prove God did it, the best you can ever dos is "that's wired and nothing we know explains it." "

Exactly. You're falling for the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because something is not explained according to current knowledge doesn't mean that some other explanation is right. The other explanation must be verified in its own right, and has nothing to do with whether we have a lack of explanation otherwise. And that's exactly the approach you're taking: "If we can explain it scientifically, it must be this other thing" (a Christian miracle).

"But if the only thing that might be construed as causality is prayer than it's logical to assume it's a miracle"

False assumption. There is no reason why prayer is the*only* thing to be construed as causal.

CallMeIrresponsible said...

Oops, I meant "If we can't explain it scientifically . . . ."

"Of cousre they can't prove it's a miralce."

I think you're not saying this sarcastically, but I'm not sure. If this is what you believe, then you've just admitted the miracle isn't proved.


I don't mean to offend you. I am not saying this as an insult to make you feel bad. But you are thinking about this way too simpoistically. You apparently don't have the background in philosphy to undersand what epipistemology is.

I said there is an epistemological gap. There always will be. There is an epistemic gap in all proof. It's impossible to prove anything totally. do you understand? Obvious you can't prove "beyond the shadow of a dobut" that something is a miracle. I've also intimated that it may be impossible to even define miracles accurately. But what we can do is demonstrate a probability beyond the odds. In other words, when something can't be explained and the only explaination that works is that it is a supernatural effect, then it's logical to so construe it.

that is no different than the assertion made in science that a tight correlation equals causality. How did they discover that smoking was harmful? four decades before then found a mechanism they assumed so based upon a tight correlation.
"Even a guy in a white robe appeared with nail prints in his hands and raised someone form the dead you would still say it's not proof. "

If that actually happened, it would be a fact. But the question is whether it actually happened. So your approach here leads us nowhere.


I don't think you would accept it as a fact even if it happened before your eyes."It's not god of the gaps it's the only responsible scientifically valid way to test miracles. All you can do is say it's inexplicable. you can't explain it if its' inexplicable. you can't prove God did it, the best you can ever dos is "that's wired and nothing we know explains it." "

Exactly. You're falling for the fallacy of the excluded middle.

ahahahahahaah you don't what excluded middle means!

It's not a fallacy! excluded is a law. Its' called the LAW OF EXCLUDED MIDDLE NOT THE FALLACY FO EXCLUDED MIDDLE!

AND THIS IS NOT IT. The excluded middle says take the golden means, That's the fallacy involved. the law of excluded middle means exclude the middle. It matters where logical contradiction is invovled you can't have a golden mean between two contradictions.

that sure doesn't apply here becasue what the Lourdes committee guys are doing is no different than what the surgeon general did when he said smoking caused cancer.

they are doing it case by case not an a epidemiological basis.
Just because something is not explained according to current knowledge doesn't mean that some other explanation is right.


If our knowledge is not capable of covering it and there is another explaination that makes sense (miracles make sense in the assumptions of religious belief--this is a committee that's finding miracles for a church that believers in miracles) then it is a logical thing to construe. The other explanation must be verified in its own right, and has nothing to do with whether we have a lack of explanation otherwise. And that's exactly the approach you're taking: "If we can explain it scientifically, it must be this other thing" (a Christian miracle).


No! if we can't explain it scientific not if we can."But if the only thing that might be construed as causality is prayer than it's logical to assume it's a miracle"

False assumption. There is no reason why prayer is the*only* thing to be construed as causal.


certanily it is! you cannot show me a scientifically valid explaintion for the lourdes miracles or the Casdrouph miracles or my fathers miracles. you have no concept of what did that.

but prayer was the only expandability factor and that makes sense to find so.

you are saying that if your father was sick and you prayed "don't let him die" and he died and came back to life and the doctor said "this i a miracle" you would not even allow yourself to believe "maybe it was?" Sorry, I find that incredibly stupid. your missing some basic component of logic. you are probably one of those people who thinks science is the only form of knowledge.

typical of the atheist myopic ideology. knowing very little of how science works and even less about epistemology you mind complete closed to any idea other than the party line..

CallMeIrresponsible said...

"ahahahahahaah" and all CAPS is not a persuasive argument in any case, but especially given the following:

"For the "fallacy of the excluded middle" see False dilemma." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

I agree that absolute proof is difficult, although to continue the conversation about that, we should first clarify what we mean by "absolute proof." I think "proof" only applies to logical conclusions, given a set of postulates or assumptions. So no empirical statement can ever be proved absolutely, I think.

You mentioned a probability beyond the odds. Is it clear that all miracle healings are beyond the odds? That is, winning the lottery is beyond the odds, but someone beats the odds. I'm not referring to the case of lungs regenerating overnight, that is clearly supernatural, beyond beating the odds. We should distinguish between healings that beat the odds, and healings that are supernatural.
"No! if we can't explain it scientific not if we can."

I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.
"but prayer was the only expandability factor and that makes sense to find so."

What does this sentence mean? What is an expandibility factor?"you are saying that if your father was sick and you prayed "don't let him die" and he died and came back to life and the doctor said "this i a miracle" you would not even allow yourself to believe "maybe it was?""

Sure, maybe it was, but that says nothing. Maybe I'm the Queen of England. Get my point? You can say "maybe [anything]." That gets us nowhere.

If you're convinced that prayer can save lives and heal, why don't you conclude that it was prayer that killed people and kept them sick when, in the vast majority of cases in which people are prayed for, they don't live and don't heal? Prayer works only when we like the outcome? What possible reason can there be for why prayer only works in a very limited number of cases?

ahahahah Irresponsible, your answers are not clever, they are not intelligent, you have not answered one damn thing I said.

All you are doing is repeated your same tired beaten disproved party line from the atheist ideology that lost in the nineteenth century.

constantly refusing to oepn your eyes and see what's there is not proof its not doubt it's just silly.Gain saying the evdience is no an argument.

as for your final comment Iv'e explained it many times

CallMeIrresponsible said...

JL, your last post, you may not disagree, had no arguments, just claims. But what if I responded in kind? Senseless, huh? So why did you? We could go on like that forever.

Furthermore, some things you said I would have responded to if I could have understood what they meant in English. I asked for clarification, but you ignored my requests. Whose fault is that?

I understand your reluctance to respond to my last comment. No sense going in circles.

I certainly have answered at least one thing you've said. I agree with you about the difficulty of absolute proof. I also answered your point about your father dying. You may disagree with my answer, you may not like it, you may think it is nonsense, but I did (literally) answer it.

JL, your last post, you may not disagree, had no arguments, just claims. But what if I responded in kind? Senseless, huh? So why did you? We could go on like that forever.

The first version of it was long and involved but I wanted to change some things so I was re-doing it when something came up and I just posted without really getting into what I wanted to say.Furthermore, some things you said I would have responded to if I could have understood what they meant in English. I asked for clarification, but you ignored my requests. Whose fault is that?


but they would have been over your head anyway.I understand your reluctance to respond to my last comment. No sense going in circles.

you mean about why doesn't God heal everybody? I'm going to do a whole post on it today.I certainly have answered at least one thing you've said. I agree with you about the difficulty of absolute proof. I also answered

you don't seem to understand why that means that the way we get around that problem in a general sense is exactly they way we decide miracles. So that means our criteria for miracle selection stacks up to our criteria for epistemic judgment.your point about your father dying. You may disagree with my answer, you may not like it, you may think it is nonsense, but I did (literally) answer it.


You answered it in a way that demonstrates your shallow understanding of what life is and what existential self authentication is about, and you have no concept of how epistemic judgment works, and that you can't phantom the notion of navigation in the world.

Nutshell: "navigation" = surviving the life's material trammels without losing one's sense of authentication, and the basic reason and intuitive sense that is required to make choices and decisions in the world considering these parameters.


Your answer is bereft of any of this. It just amounts to saying "fathering dying. big deal. father came back to life, o rats no inheritance. no need to think any deeper than that.

CallMeIrresponsible said...

"but they would have been over your head anyway"

You won't even give me the chance?! Even God gives us a chance to live up to his ideals. Is condescension a Christian value? Here's your chance to live up to your ideals.""fathering dying. big deal. father came back to life, o rats no inheritance. no need to think any deeper than that."

I can't find a quote by myself in which I said anything like that. Either I missed it, or you like to create straw men. Care to prove it either way?

Use of Content

The contents of this blog may be reproduced or forwarded via e-mail without change and in its entirety for non-commercial purposes without prior permission from the Christian CADRE provided that the copyright information is included. We would appreciate notification of the use of our content. Please e-mail us at christiancadre@yahoo.com.