I will now prove atheists are illogical Part 2.

**Neutral** · Mar 31 2012, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by fishmatter

I really need to watch my words to avoid you misunderstanding them. I meant bias in the mathematical sense, as a measure of reliability of data. I didn't mean political or religious bias.

I must have missed it when you accepted that it's not scientifically verifiable. Di you propose the way to conduct the study which I then criticized, or was it someone else? I'm participating in a lot of threads at the moment so again, I'm sorry if we've been talking at cross purposes.

But do you accept my main point then, that the study, whoever proposed it, tells us nothing because we can't rule out the possibility that some or all of the anecdotes are not true? Without judging anyone, to be sure.

There is no mathematical basis to observed phenomena. There is only rigorous documentation that can verify that these things are or are not happening.

You really need to use the right tool for the right job, and trying to reduce miraculous healing to a set of mathematical numbers is profoundly missing the point.

Its like telling a lover, "I Love You," by saying, "1+1=2, babe!"

There is no judgement in whether or not something is happening, there is certainly bias in whether or not someone wants to acknoweldge what is happening.

**fishmatter** · Mar 31 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Neutral

There is no mathematical basis to observed phenomena. There is only rigorous documentation that can verify that these things are or are not happening.

You really need to use the right tool for the right job, and trying to reduce miraculous healing to a set of mathematical numbers is profoundly missing the point.

Its like telling a lover, "I Love You," by saying, "1+1=2, babe!"

There is no judgement in whether or not something is happening, there is certainly bias in whether or not someone wants to acknoweldge what is happening.

I think smarter people than me are doing work that might shed light on the issue. Maybe not. I think it's worth a shot. The efficacy of prayer seems easier to measure. But it's not the same as arbitrarily deciding to use 1+1=2 in that context. That's just a random string of sounds designed to make a point. I would hope that if someone decided to look into miracle claims they would be a little more rigorous, setting up the parameters beforehand attempting to control as many variables as possible. It does sound tough but this is far from my field of expertise.

**Neutral** · Mar 31 2012, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by fishmatter

I think smarter people than me are doing work that might shed light on the issue. Maybe not. I think it's worth a shot. The efficacy of prayer seems easier to measure. But it's not the same as arbitrarily deciding to use 1+1=2 in that context. That's just a random string of sounds designed to make a point. I would hope that if someone decided to look into miracle claims they would be a little more rigorous, setting up the parameters beforehand attempting to control as many variables as possible. It does sound tough but this is far from my field of expertise.

THey did ...

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...-miracles.html

http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

You are aware that the beautification process in the Catholic church, for millenia now, actually had to go out, and to the best of their admitted human capability, had to document the miracles of people raised to Sainthood?

Do you really think that you ar ethe first person in millenia to approach the problem set of miracles from a 'logical' standpoint?

Now that we are beyond that, perhaps we can examine what it means when we KNOW miracles have been happening for thousands of years? Nothing? Well, I guess that is an opinion.

**fishmatter** · Mar 31 2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Neutral

THey did ...

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...-miracles.html

http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

You are aware that the beautification process in the Catholic church, for millenia now, actually had to go out, and to the best of their admitted human capability, had to document the miracles of people raised to Sainthood?

Do you really think that you ar ethe first person in millenia to approach the problem set of miracles from a 'logical' standpoint?

Now that we are beyond that, perhaps we can examine what it means when we KNOW miracles have been happening for thousands of years? Nothing? Well, I guess that is an opinion.

Of course I'm aware the church investigates potential saints. But they also, to this day, maintain that demonic possession occurs. They hardly seem unbiased and it's clearly in their interest to keep the flow of saints coming through.

But on the other hand it's not nothing. Have they investigated the miracle claims of other religions, or encouraged outside observers to shadow their procedures? How much of it takes place in the open for others to see and understand the process? And how do they correct for what I imagine is a very real effect: if you employ people to find miracles to attribute to potential saints, that's what they're going to try to do or risk losing their jobs, right?

But who knows? Maybe they have witnessed some crazy stuff. And maybe the reason scientists never seem able to get even a glimpse of anything miraculous is the one you gave - that these things aren't well-measured by science.

I guess, based on the discussion we've been having and your difficulty understanding why the experiment (which you didn't propose, I remember) was doomed to fail regardless of the findings, how you misinterpreted it repeatedly as my calling people a bunch of liars, and so on. I feel like either you don't understand the scientific method or you're deeply suspicious of it. So when you say you "know" something about miracles having taken place I wonder if that knowledge is based on the as firm a foundation as I would want were I to make the claim.

**Neutral** · Mar 31 2012, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by fishmatter

Of course I'm aware the church investigates potential saints. But they also, to this day, maintain that demonic possession occurs. They hardly seem unbiased and it's clearly in their interest to keep the flow of saints coming through.

But on the other hand it's not nothing. Have they investigated the miracle claims of other religions, or encouraged outside observers to shadow their procedures? How much of it takes place in the open for others to see and understand the process? And how do they correct for what I imagine is a very real effect: if you employ people to find miracles to attribute to potential saints, that's what they're going to try to do or risk losing their jobs, right?

But who knows? Maybe they have witnessed some crazy stuff. And maybe the reason scientists never seem able to get even a glimpse of anything miraculous is the one you gave - that these things aren't well-measured by science.

I guess, based on the discussion we've been having and your difficulty understanding why the experiment (which you didn't propose, I remember) was doomed to fail regardless of the findings, how you misinterpreted it repeatedly as my calling people a bunch of liars, and so on. I feel like either you don't understand the scientific method or you're deeply suspicious of it. So when you say you "know" something about miracles having taken place I wonder if that knowledge is based on the as firm a foundation as I would want were I to make the claim.

So, the Catholic Church postulates both God and Demons and finds evidence for both, yet your hyposthesis, having checked the veracity of neither is that the one cancels out the other.

Brother, please take a look at the thread title.

**revol** · Mar 31 2012, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Neutral

So, the Catholic Church postulates both God and Demons and finds evidence for both, yet your hyposthesis, having checked the veracity of neither is that the one cancels out the other.

Brother, please take a look at the thread title.

The Catholic church can't postulate their a$$e$ from their elbows, so really?

**fishmatter** · Mar 31 2012, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Neutral

So, the Catholic Church postulates both God and Demons and finds evidence for both, yet your hyposthesis, having checked the veracity of neither is that the one cancels out the other.

Brother, please take a look at the thread title.

I'm beginning to think you don't even bother to read what I've written. Ready my third paragraph. I'm hardly making an absolute claim that they're all snake oil salesmen. Do you, on the other hand, disagree that it's in their interests to keep finding miracles? That seems obvious, regardless of whether or not it's ever colored their perception of things.