Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
In the end they will believe or they wont and no amount of amputees growing limbs will convince them if they don't believe.
How about you start with one amputee growing back his limbs, and we will take it from there
God only cures people in ways that could equally be explained by natural occurrences or mistakes on the part of the observers. Odd that
0 -
-
-
How about you start with one amputee growing back his limbs, and we will take it from there
How about you start paying attention? See the first line of my last post.
Are you telling me that if ther was an amputee growing back a limb and you could not explain it you would believe God did it?
You are aware that if you want to ask a closed scientific question as to whether or not something psychic happened that a protocol and how we measure something has to be agreed in advance of the experiment/measurement being conducted?
I'm asking you if a person grows a limb and says "God did it" and science cant determine the limb is fake would that make you believe in God or would that constitute proof? I believe your answer will be "no". Care to contradict me?God only cures people in ways that could equally be explained by natural occurrences or mistakes on the part of the observers. Odd that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
administered and run only by doctors. Its most noted function is the medical investigation of apparent cures associated with the shrine of Lourdes.
The Medical Bureau investigates the claim, by examining the patient, the casenotes, and any test results (which can include biopsies, X-rays, CT scans, blood test results, and so on).
If this conference decides that further investigation is warranted, the case is referred to the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL), which is an international panel of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines and of different religious beliefs.
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)
so your above criterion that itcould equally be explained by natural occurrences or mistakes on the part of the observers.
Is clearly bunkum in the above cases!
As regards limb related cases...
Pieter De Rudder was a farm labourer, born Jabbeke July 2, 1822, died March 22, 1898[6]. His recovery from a broken leg (1875) is one of the most famous recognized Lourdes miracles (a bronze cast of his bones is exhibited in the Lourdes Medical Bureau
Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli
Visited Lourdes: 5 June 1958.
Age 27, from Patti, Sicily. Tuberculous osteoarthritis with fistulae at multiple sites in the right leg. Her cure was recognised on 26 May 1965.
Juliette Tamburini
Visited Lourdes: 17 July 1959.
Age 22, from Marseilles, France. Femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten years. Her cure was recognised on 11 May 1965.
Vittorio Micheli
Visited Lourdes: 1 June 1963.
Age 23, from Scurelle, Italy. Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumour so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralysed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain and could walk. By February 1964 the tumour was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. His cure was recognized on 26 May 1976.
Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa
Visited Lourdes: 24 December 1976.
Age 12, from Paterno, Sicily. Ewing's sarcoma of right knee. Offered amputation by her doctors, her mother refused and took her to Lourdes instead. On returning to Italy, her tumour rapidly regressed until no remaining evidence existed, although it left her tibia angulated, which required an operation (osteotomy) to correct. Her cure was recognised on 28 June 1989. She went on to become a nurse.0 -
Advertisement
-
I was wondering how people with strong faith and missing limbs accept that will not be cured (no go to Lourdes with one arm and come back with two moment) by God no matter how much they pray. How can they, when faced with this, still hold on to their faith?
I am a great lover of Thomas who had to see it to believe it.
There are some however who don't see and yet still believe. So I guess I'm a skeptic not a cynic.
As to your and Jimi times points.
They to me seem a variation on the theme of "why does evil exist?"
Well look up Irenaean theodicy; Augustinian theodicy ;The Malthusiam concept of what might be today phrased as "we need stress". Leibniz also has a good take on the issue but I think Voltaire's Candide is a hilarious "touché" on it
I think the problem you may have is in trying to quantify units of faith. In the end one believes or one doesn't. It is boolian rather than quantized.0 -
How about you start paying attention? See the first line of my last post.
Are you telling me that if ther was an amputee growing back a limb and you could not explain it you would believe God did it?
No, but I would be much more open to the idea that he did over other alternative explains that don't invoke a super powerful deity.
But my point (if you were paying attention) is that we aren't even there yet.
All we have is the equivalent of coming home to find your window open and declaring "God did it!".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
administered and run only by doctors. Its most noted function is the medical investigation of apparent cures associated with the shrine of Lourdes.
The Medical Bureau investigates the claim, by examining the patient, the casenotes, and any test results (which can include biopsies, X-rays, CT scans, blood test results, and so on).
If this conference decides that further investigation is warranted, the case is referred to the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL), which is an international panel of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines and of different religious beliefs.
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)
so your above criterion that it
Is clearly bunkum in the above cases!
Not at all, it fits the criteria perfectly, the CMIL can only declare something medically inexplicable, which just means we don't know how that happened, not that it could not happen based on the current understood laws of physics.
Again this is why you do not see amputees growing new arms or legs. That would actually require a miracle, not simply an undocumented natural process.As regards limb related cases...
Pieter De Rudder was a farm labourer, born Jabbeke July 2, 1822, died March 22, 1898[6]. His recovery from a broken leg (1875) is one of the most famous recognized Lourdes miracles (a bronze cast of his bones is exhibited in the Lourdes Medical Bureau
Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli
Wow, 1875 the pinicle of modern scientific knowledge :rolleyes:
This is actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about, something that can easily be explained by ignorance of what happened or falsehoods on the part of the participants.
A broken leg healing hardly requires the suspension of the natural laws of physics. If he had his leg removed by doctors and the next day was walking around with a brand new leg, that might raise an eyebrow. Instead what we have is 19th centuries doctors saying they can't cure his leg, him going away and then his leg healing.
I notice none of your other examples are spontaneous regeneration of amputeed limbs either. Why doesn't God do this for all to see? Cause well that would be too much evidence that he exists, and then what would be the point of faith, right?
It is exactly the same as the question why do psychics only come up with fluff in their sessions, why do people who can bend metal only bend spoons, why do people who can see far away spaces only see places they have been and you haven't etc etc etc
Cause it ain't real 0 -
-
-
No, but I would be much more open to the idea that he did over other alternative explains that don't invoke a super powerful deity.
But my point (if you were paying attention) is that we aren't even there yet.
The point is already taken that if there you would still not have enough. When will you ever have enough? The point made was only when you believe.Not at all, it fits the criteria perfectly, the CMIL can only declare something medically inexplicable, which just means we don't know how that happened, not that it could not happen based on the current understood laws of physics.
Yes. it is the Church declares "miracles" not science. I can't se you point. You are arguing for scientific proof of God? Science can't supply that. It can supply an explanation or say it isn't sufficient to supply an explanation.
Your criterion " could equally be explained by natural occurrences or mistakes on the part of the observers." are all dealt with in the protocols I showed you. No it could NOT be explained by natural causes or by observational error! Not equally! The doctors check it out under strict protocols using modern technology and confirming the case incurable in advance. They didn't mis observe and they do not have a natural explanation!Again this is why you do not see amputees growing new arms or legs. That would actually require a miracle, not simply an undocumented natural process.
But you already admitted you would NOT accept it is a miracle in that case!
And it isn't an "undoccumented natural process" either
It is highly doccumented and inexplicable i.e. the doctors are resolute that they can not conclude it is a natural process!Wow, 1875 the pinicle of modern scientific knowledge :rolleyes:
I am aghast that you regard scientific achievements in 1875 as rudimentary scant or primitive. I suppose given you have just ruled out Albert_Schweitzer; Carl Jung; and other medical people and the Anatomy Act of Quebec, you may as well move on to Mileva Maric ( you probably dont know whose life she influenced) ; you may as well rule out James Clerk Maxwell who best work was just completed and other like Galileo and Isaac Newton who were three cneturies earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_De_RudderA broken leg healing hardly requires the suspension of the natural laws of physics.
Several doctors attempted, unsuccessfully, to treat him, and one advised amputation, which was refused by De Rudder.
two witnesses sign the same statement, written by the vicar of Jabbeke, according to which the day before the pilgrimage they saw the ends of bone protruding into the wound.
The date of the last examination of the leg is important because, in the opinion of many Catholic physicians, the only reason to consider the healing of De Rudder as miraculous is the testimonial proof of its instantaneousnessIf he had his leg removed by doctors and the next day was walking around with a brand new leg, that might raise an eyebrow. Instead what we have is 19th centuries doctors saying they can't cure his leg, him going away and then his leg healing.
Dr. Van Hoestenberghe's responses of April and May 1875 to Mgr Faict, which were lost during the canonical inquiry, are found again in 1956 and published in 1957. In the second of these responses, Dr. Van Hoestenberghe (who, as we saw, would report to the Commission of 1907-1908 that he had examined the injured leg ten or twelve timesI notice none of your other examples are spontaneous regeneration of amputeed limbs either. Why doesn't God do this for all to see?
If he did you already stated you would not believe.
By the way you didnt explain
Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli
Juliette Tamburini
Vittorio Micheli
Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa
Any explanations?It is exactly the same as the question why do psychics only come up with fluff in their sessions, ...
Cause it ain't real
Can you explain what the doctors in heavily documented cases couldn't.
It wasn't "fluff" they are clearly documented incurable cases and science cant explain how they were cured.
I'm not saying God did it. I'm just saying that science cant explain it and your conclusion that "it ain't real" isn't scientifically correct!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
So when you already believe you will then accept these things are miracles?
Keep my personal beliefs out of this please. We were discussing yours.
If you mean "one" and not "you" well then the answer to your "so...?" is NO. If one already believes they accept the possibility of a miracle. If one ( you in this case) does not believe they rule out any possibility of a miracle. But they cant claim science rules it out!I'm not, I'm arguing that nothing religions have ever produced as evidence that miracles take place is anything other than stuff that can easily be explained within the normal laws or nature or can be explained through misunderstandings of humans.
And your argument falls flat on its fact because scientific experts - medical doctors in these cases - who didn't misunderstand the symptoms ( as is quite clear by detailed medical documentation) have attested that they can't scientifically explain what happened using the normal laws of nature. In fact the church declares these things miracles partly based on science not being able to give a plausible explanation. Not alone that it may be that the likelihood of anything approaching a plausible explanation as to be even more improbable than a miracle for the church to declare it a miracle. In other words if it wasn't a miracle then whatever happened was even less likely than if it was a miracle.Thus it is a reasonable conclusion that miracles have not actually happened when it is claimed they have.
Given the premise is false the conclusion is not reasonable.An amputee regrowing his arm would be a genuine miracle (as would say the stars rearranging themselves to spell "Hi there, its me God"). But those sort of things do not happen.
But you already used the "only ture Scotsman" on that ! You admitted that if such a thing happened you would still not believe.Instead we get what can best be described as parlour tricks.
That is quite clearly rubbish! You have been shown well documented medical cases in which the subjects were longitudinally surveyed. It is nonsense to declare modern medicine was wrong in all the above cases or that some doctor was faking it or that the subjects all had some parlour trick magic which fooled the medics.I could be explained by either of those things. As I said legs healing do not break the laws of nature. Cancer going into remission does not break the laws of nature.
Legs which are dead and in the opinion of doctors best amputated coming back to life and doctors saying they can not scientifically explain i.e "what we know about the laws of nature are not sufficient to explain it" are cases where you can't say that just over the next hill or round the next bend science will find an explanation.
You see when you say "not against the laws of nature" you are copping out by suggesting there is an explanation but science just doesn't know that explanation yet.
How is such scientism different from belief in a miracle? How is believing "laws of nature we don't know about yet" and different from "supernatural forces we just can't prove exist"A leg regrowing itself would.
So if someone had a leg regrown you would say it was a miracle and that you believe in God?
you saidFirstly how do you know they don't mis-observe. Secondly I didn't say misoberve I said make mistakes.easily be explained by ignorance of what happened or falsehoods on the part of the participants
What were the medics ignorant of?
What mistakes did they make?
Who do you claim was faking a case and how did they fool each doctor involved?
For what motive?Doctors don't make mistakes now, do they? You might want to tell doctors that.
so you are saying that a number of scientists repeating the same expirement which has always yielded the same result may in fact be making a mistake? Such ideas seem more akin to belief in supernatural than to relying on the scientific system.
But let me ask you again. given the doctors gave their opinion what can you show me in the above cases which demonstrates a mistake by the doctors or a faked injury?Know I said I would not accept it as proof of the existence of God.
But you will accept the absence of evidence like a limb growing back as evidence of the non existence of God? LOL!If the only accurate explanation required the theory that the natural laws of nature were suspended I would certain consider it a miracle.
But you cant show the natural laws of nature were not suspended. Science can't explain it within the laws they know! If science itself fails to explain something what is the difference between believing it must be some law we havent yet discovered and believing in a miracle.
Ever heard of "Sagan's dragon"? You have just resurrected one.And doctors never make mistakes or lie?
That is just a conspiracy theory. Ill draw you attention to the above criterion to "any plausable explaination must me even less likely than the miracle"
Let us take the following
1. some organisation could have a secret wing manufacturing such "lies" and farming them out to different doctors and fake subjects over the last 150 years. In doing so they are getting up to date scientific research and methodology and recruiting medical and other scientists and doing all this unbeknown to all the rest of science.
2. Extraterrestrial space aliens with advanced technology capable of regrowing legs are secretly based on Earth. they have "invisibility technology" as well. All these technologies are unknown to our "laws of nature" but are withing a bigger set of "laws of nature" we dont know about yet"
3. A miracle happened.
The church will declare 3 if it is more likely than 1 or 2.
Or of course it could be space aliens or the FreemasonsWell that is very naive of you, but could explain why you are so willing to accept claims of miracles.
I didnt say I accepted the claims and I actually noted that Lourdes is NOT a required belief of the Catholic Church. I just picked it because it is a well doccumented counter example of your "misobservation/not doccumented/ignorant/ not scientific/etc." claimsAnd? Did he x-ray the leg? No xrays hadn't been invented yet. Did he treat for infection? No germ theory hadn't been established yet.
Oh please! Before you go any further down this road let me tell you one of my academic fields is the history of science. But I won't "argue from authority" . As to history of medicine
Girolamo Fracastoro proposed in 1546 that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seed-like entities that could transmit infection by direct or indirect contact or even without contact over long distances.
Microorganisms were first directly observed by Anton van Leeuwenhoek,. He discovered bacteria in 1676!
Nicolas Andry argued in 1700 that microorganisms he called "worms" were responsible for smallpox and other diseases.
Of course there was a theory!
Not alone that there was practice. In the 1870s Joseph Lister was instrumental in developing practical applications of the germ theory of disease with respect to surgical techniques.
One didnt require a microbiology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow_%28physician%29(15 March 1813 – 16 June 1858) was an English physician and a leader in the adoption of anaesthesia and medical hygiene. He is considered to be one of the fathers of epidemiology, because of his work in tracing the source of a cholera outbreak in Soho, England, in 1854.
And did he use a microscope? He was unaware of the mechanism by which the disease was transmitted, but evidence led him to believe that it was not due to breathing foul air. He used statistics!He showed that the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company was taking water from sewage-polluted sections of the Thames and delivering the water to homes with an increased incidence of cholera. Snow's study was a major event in the history of public health, and geography, and can be regarded as the founding event of the science of epidemiology.
No germ theory necessary!
Broken? this isnt a sporting injury or a sprained ankle you know?Again explain to me how the laws of nature have to be suspended for a broken leg to heal?
Did you not read the medical evidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewing%27s_sarcoma#EpidemiologyTreatment often consists of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy generally followed by a limb salvage or an amputation and may also include radiotherapy. Complete excision at the time of biopsy may be performed if malignancy is confirmed at the time it is examined. Treatment lengths vary depending on location and stage of the disease at diagnosis. Radical chemotherapy may be as short as 6 treatments at 3 week cycles, however most patients will undergo chemotherapy for 6–12 months and radiation therapy for 5–8 weeks.Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumour so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralysed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain and could walk. By February 1964 the tumour was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life.
AS for de Rutter I already pointed to the case being remarkable only because of the swiftness of the cure.
But how do you explain not just the arresting but the reversal of MS?Sure, they got better.
MS patients don't! They only get worse or stop getting worse! They DON'T get better!Can you explain again how that requires the suspension of the laws of physics, you seem to be doing your best to dodge that question.
Either it draws on laws of physics we don't yet know about which reverse cancers and cause bones to grow back into sockets or "something else" . whatever the explaination the current understanding by the expert people in the field can not explain it according to the current understandsing of medicine. Yes it could be a miracle an "alien healing ray" or a massive conspiracy by the Illuminati but it can't be explained by science.I'm pretty sure the doctors would concur that they got better.
I'm pretty sure they would concur that science can't explain HOW they got better.
They can not say it is within the bounds of scientific understanding!Science cannot explain a lot of things, normally followed by science then explaining it.
That is just scientism! It isnt a scientific argument! ~It is an inductive argument based on your belief that science will explain away God or anything else. It isn't based on any scientific law or axiom.Are you suggesting that a natural phenomena is a "miracle" until science can explain it? That is ridiculous.
No I am suggesting science can not conclude it is NOT a miracle. Please learn the difference between "verification" and "falsification" . If science can not explain it then science can not say it is no miracle! Remember where we came into this You were claiming it is "all fluff" and "fakers" and their are rational scientific explainations which are much more reasonable to believe. Buit I showed you that is exactly the opposite of what a miracle has to be. they have to exhaust all reasonable scientific explainations! That means getting qualified scientists and doctors to actually sift over the evidence. And in some cases they cant explain what happened.0 -
-
-
Lourdes "miracles" are statistically insignificant. If the majority came back cured, or if the miracles were unambiguous (I.e. A Limb growing back), then there might have been something too it.
We have just been over that issue. Only true scotsman, scientism, and failure to admit that you accept a limb growing back as proof of God. You still would not believe it if it happened would you? And what is the difference between an offer of amutation for a limb which is clinically "dead" and a dead limb? And how do you scientifically explain MS not just stopping but reversing?
Pull the other one 0 -
We have just been over that issue. Only true scotsman, scientism, and failure to admit that you accept a limb growing back as proof of God. You still would not believe it if it happened would you? And what is the difference between an offer of amutation for a limb which is clinically "dead" and a dead limb? And how do you scientifically explain MS not just stopping but reversing?
Pull the other one
The "miracles" of Lourdes are statistically insignificant. By this, I mean they happen to people who do not go to Lourdes, or any religious shrine or ceremony. If you want to claim they are miracles, and not simply surprising examples of imperfect medical knowledge, you would have to show that these "miracles" are correlated to Lourdes. Or you would have to give an example of something extraordinary, like a limb growing back.
"Miracle" can denote unlikely, but entirely natural events, or even just wonderful events. A small fraction of Lourdes visitors experience these miracles, as we would expect, but there has been no case of the suspension of natural laws to facilitate divine intervention.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement