Amazing thing happened to me last Sunday

[Caro]

How about a place that seems to make 'miracles happen .. Lourdes?

On that subject... just ran a quick search (and yes it kinda hurt the agnostic in me) about that.

When a pilgrim claims to have had a miraculous cure, there's a whole process to investigate the case. The Church mandates some doctors to determine whether or not the healing is first, unexpected, two, confirmed, and three, of 'exceptional character' given the current knowledge in science. Seems like a fairly robust and scientific process actually, with a caveat that the doctors they employ may be Christians (at the same time, they use many of them in the process, and some are highly respected members of the Academy of Medecine, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to keep some impartiality - if that exists - when they examine a case).
Note that the doctors will conclude that a case is 'unexplained', not 'inexplicable' or 'a miracle'.
The Church then states that those unexplained cases are miracles.

You'll note as well that since 1850 there are only 67 of such cases, and only 3 in the past 20 years... as to presume that the current level of knowledge in medecine might have something to do with it...

Info here.

[Jamie]

I'm sure glad I don't see in just black and white... Theres a rainbow out there somewhere, it's full of wonderful colours. Sounds like some people need reminding of that.

[Barry Shnikov]

Your grasp of scientific proofs is a little one-sided, if you'll forgive me for saying so. You do not prove that God does not exist by failing to prove that he does. You prove that he doesn't by finding concrete evidence that he doesn't

That simply cannot be correct. When experiencing the universe first hand there is, literally, no reason whatsoever to surmise the existence of divine beings. The burden of proof, scientific, legal or just logical, must lie on the propounders of the theory that he exists.

Otherwise, we must all accept the possibility of the existence of Jove, Odin, Zeus, Kali, Shiva, Ra, all the gods of the early civilisations of the fertile crescent and the Mediterranean, and those of the American Indians, of the Aztecs, of the Incas, of the Mayans, of the Japanese, of the South Sea islanders, of the Maoris and the Australian aborigines, of the entire African continent, and so on and so forth. O, not forgetting L Ron Hubbard's Xenu.

Any mathmetician or logician or philosopher would accept that the existence of no divine beings is the null hypothesis, and therefore proof is required of god, not the other way around.

Otherwise, why would theologians have spent so much time on the matter? They are already believers, so you'd think that if it was up to others to disprove the existence of god they'd have simply said so and moved on to considering how many wings a Throne has.

[Barry Shnikov]

I'm sure glad I don't see in just black and white... Theres a rainbow out there somewhere, it's full of wonderful colours. Sounds like some people need reminding of that.

It's tremendously foolish of people to assume that because someone rejects the existence of woo-woo phenomena, that therefore they - the assumers - are living a richer life.

[Barry Shnikov]

You'll note as well that since 1850 there are only 67 of such cases, and only 3 in the past 20 years... as to presume that the current level of knowledge in medecine might have something to do with it...

Ya think? You skeptical Caro, you.

Did you find statistics on a) how many people went to Lourdes seeking a miracle ? and b) how many claims of a miracle were rejected?

In 157 years, I bet the numbers of people who've been to Lourdes runs into millions. 67 is statistically insignificant, if that's the case. In 20 years, I wouldn't mind betting we are talking about a 7-digit number, making 3 even less significant.

The Pope is considering making John Paul2 a saint because a bunch of nuns prayed to him about one of their number who had got some illness - Alzheimers? can't remember. Somebody noted that you would have thought that God would have granted some of the prayers of the tens of millions of catholics who prayed for John Paul2 to have his Alzheimer's cured...I'm sure some of them sought the intercession of other saints.

[straycat]

That simply cannot be correct. When experiencing the universe first hand there is, literally, no reason whatsoever to surmise the existence of divine beings. The burden of proof, scientific, legal or just logical, must lie on the propounders of the theory that he exists.

It can be correct, and it is correct. What you are saying is that you will not believe these things unless they are proven to exist, and that is fine. What I am saying is that in scientific terms, one cannot claim that they don't exist unless you have successfully proven that they don't. This is basic scientific principle I'm talking about here. If you want to claim something is fact, you prove it first.

All you are doing is preaching your unbelief, and using a load of slightly confused pseudo-scientific pop-philosophy justifications for it. Very New Age of you, if I might say so. Oh - and I think those candles just set your robes on fire - you really ought to watch out for that.

Now. For something more important. Tom Waits. Musical genius, or screeching drunken old bum? (obviously, I go for the former)

[EDIT] Forgot to ask - how do you get your beard so long, pure white and luxurious? Is it real? Do you bleach it? Is it a souvenir from your Druid days? Enquiring minds want to know...

[Barry Shnikov]

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

This is addressed to those credulous people who believe in faith healing.

If you needed advice from a lawyer, would you go see someone who'd never studied law, never conducted a 'legal transaction' or been inside a court room? If you wanted a house designed, would you ask a guy who'd been a carpenter for a couple of years or an architect?

Why do I bother. You'd probably all consult an astrologer.

[Barry Shnikov]

It can be correct, and it is correct. What you are saying is that you will not believe these things unless they are proven to exist, and that is fine. What I am saying is that in scientific terms, one cannot claim that they don't exist unless you have successfully proven that they don't. This is basic scientific principle I'm talking about here. If you want to claim something is fact, you prove it first.

T h a t' s c o r r e c t.

But who is seeking to prove something? I'm not. The god botherers are. You can't say 'someone told me this when I was 4 therefore you have to prove it's wrong', or 'somebody plucked this out of the air in the nineteenth century therefore you have to prove its wrong'.

The whole thing about religions are that they make claims; I simply deny those claims, they have no comeback that proves me wrong and that's what proves there are no gods.

As I say, it's the default position. There are no fairies, either.

EDIT - Tom Waits? I cannot say I consider him a musical genius but I don't have any reason to suppose he isn't. I haven't listened much to his stuff, is the short answer.

[straycat]

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

This is addressed to those credulous people who believe in faith healing.

If you needed advice from a lawyer, would you go see someone who'd never studied law, never conducted a 'legal transaction' or been inside a court room? If you wanted a house designed, would you ask a guy who'd been a carpenter for a couple of years or an architect?

Why do I bother. You'd probably all consult an astrologer.

If I needed advice from a lawyer, I'd see a lawyer. If I needed a house designed, I'd see my uncle. If I wanted to speed up my recovery from an operation, and had discovered that the surgeon (while a brilliant surgeon) knew sod-all about convalescent advice, I'd talk to a physio, and I'd look around for other disciplines I trust - which at the moment, would be Reiki (no need to see someone, I can do that myself) and an accupuncturist. Oh yes - and I'd take up Tai Chi.

If I wanted to know more about myself, and piece together some past influences and issues, I might talk to an astrologer if there's one I trust near to hand. I'm not sure why you'd link astrology to the legal profession (or was that a subtle reference to the number of sharks posing as lawyers? If so, don't be too hard on yourself - there's plenty of good lawyers around, and there's sharks in every profession)

[straycat]

T h a t' s c o r r e c t.

But who is seeking to prove something? I'm not.

You are. You are claiming that the whole mystical / religious angle is a load of nonsense - and you are claiming that that is a scientific fact. All I am doing is explaining carefully to you why that is not a scientific fact

I'll spell this out. Again. For the last time.
I tell you that I believe Reiki works. I do not ask you to share my belief.

You tell me that science has proven Reiki cannot work - when in actual fact, no such scientific proof exists.

I am not telling you that your beliefs are wrong. I am telling you that your justifications are based on invalid assumptions, and on an incomplete understanding of the nature of scientific reasoning. You are a lawyer, not a scientist. To cite your earlier post - I might consult you over a legal matter, but if I wanted a scientific opinion (other than my own) - I'd see a scientist in whatever field was required. Not you.

You should try listening to more Tom Waits. Good for the soul

[Astro]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Barratio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Exactly, science as we know it is the eqivalant of a pre schooler learning maths, compared to just what is really happening.

Such is the nature of science. It does not provide nearly the certainty about things that you would like it to - your belief in it, if you'll forgive my saying so, borders on the religious.

Again I agree.
Science is constantly disproving previous "Facts" that science revered religiously. Quantum physics theories, for instance, are contantly changing.

[Barry Shnikov]

Oh dear, what nonsense.

Exactly, science as we know it is the eqivalant of a pre schooler learning maths, compared to just what is really happening.

That may be true of science as you know it. What you are really saying is "I believe in a lot of stuff that is utterly contradicted by science. Therefore I am going to assert that what science knows is only a proportion of 'everything that is happening'. I have absolutely no reason to suppose this is true apart from my personal preferences."

Again I agree.
Science is constantly disproving previous "Facts" that science revered religiously. Quantum physics theories, for instance, are contantly changing.

Er - first, science is logically obliged to discover that a portion of things formerly believed are mistakes. No-one, for example, believed in continental drift until about 40 years ago. This does not entitle anyone to assert that it is logical to conclude that science is wrong now. As I have said before, (a) to believe in a fraction of the woo-woo nonsense perpetrated nowadays would involve not just proving that science is mistaken here or there, but that it is fundamentally incompatible with what is really happening. Science is entirely based on a logical presumption, which is that effect follows cause by means of agency. From there science presumes that by studying one or other or combination of the three, you can draw logical inferences about how the cause produces the effect. Cause-agent-effect. Organisms affected by random mutation and cumulative selection produce evolution of the organism.
Most woo-woo phenomena just skip the middle bit - agency - entirely. They therefore are 'magic'. Harry Potter waves his wand, and somebody turns into a frog. The wand is the cause, the transformation is the effect, and the agency is magic. A healer waves his hand, the patient is cured, and the agency is magic.
Also, (b) here is my 'woo-woo' challenge. Any person can do this. Tell us which of the literally hundreds of woo-woo phenomena you do not believe in, and why. Because to believe in them all is tantamount to insanity, or at least idiocy. And yet justifying belief in some but not others is impossible.
Oh, and finally: which are the quantum theories that are constantly changing? I'm always keen to learn.

[Barry Shnikov]

You are. You are claiming that the whole mystical / religious angle is a load of nonsense - and you are claiming that that is a scientific fact. All I am doing is explaining carefully to you why that is not a scientific fact.

Um.

What is the difference between facts and scientific facts?

...reiki...

You believe that there are life forces in your body which, if they are out of balance, will make you unwell, and that if you 'realign' them, you will because of that be made well?

Or have you learn reiki techniques which, on a purely empirical basis, you have found to be of practical benefit so you stick with them?

[Lee Bartholomew]

So the argument as it stands is thus......


A) Science, with our current knowledge, proves that God does not exist.

B) Science can, and is quite often wrong. Which leads to.....

C) God might exist.

[straycat]

So the argument as it stands is thus......


A) Science, with our current knowledge, proves that God does not exist.

Well - Barry believes this, but he's completely and utterly wrong.

B) Science can, and is quite often wrong. Which leads to.....

True, but irrelevant

C) God might exist.

He might. Or he might not. I'll let you know if I find out one way or the other

[straycat]

Um.

What is the difference between facts and scientific facts?

Facts are facts. The question you really seem to be having trouble with is: 'what is difference between fact and supposition?'

You believe that there are life forces in your body which, if they are out of balance, will make you unwell, and that if you 'realign' them, you will because of that be made well?

Oh - if only life were quite that simple...

Or have you learn reiki techniques which, on a purely empirical basis, you have found to be of practical benefit so you stick with them?

I have learned such techniques which I believe have benefitted me, yes. And so I continue to use them. Whether the effect is psychosomatic, based on the energy principles that we are taught about Reiki, or a result of some other phenomenon, I don't much care - I get results good enough to keep me happy, and that's what counts.

[Lee Bartholomew]

Why's Barry wrong? I think that science hasn't been able to prove that God exists and has done more in the way of proving he doesn't than proving he does.

Wasn't there alot of people against the first maned space flight, fearing that if mankind saw God then the planet would be doomed?


I think peoples definition of God varies, esp within different religions. Some people think of God as a person sitting on a cloud with a big beard, Some people think God is a non existant entity that lives within them, some people think God is a dancer from Hastings that uses his Godly powers to spin and do aeirals.

Science can prove atleast one of them not to be the case (the cloud one!!) but can't prove the others.

[Wes]

Science has no monopoly on truth, merely a current perspective, which more often than not, changes with the passage of time into a 'newer perspective'!

[Lee Bartholomew]

Science has no monopoly on truth, merely a current perspective, which more often than not, changes with the passage of time into a 'newer perspective'!

I don't know. I see what you mean and agree with it to a fairly great extent, but Science can prove things as fact, it's more of how much we know about that fact that changes.

I.e. Science can prove that friction creates heat. We have known that since the stone ages and the theroy over time has hardly changed, we just know more about it.

[JiveLad]

So the argument as it stands is thus......


A) Science, with our current knowledge, proves that God does not exist.

B) Science can, and is quite often wrong. Which leads to.....

C) God might exist.

.....if he does exist, then he's (or she's) one hell of a meanie...........(assuming he is all powerful and can control everything in the universe). (is that still the case?)

Crikey, even some of the most vicious people on this forum wouldn't allow some of the evil that good old Goddie does.