Miracles. Scientific Proof.

[Sgt. Pepper]

Clearly, not presenting evidence is your style.

I suggested that she provide her supporting evidence for her beliefs in a post a few days ago, but she hasn't replied to my post yet.

Why don't you adequately substantiate your claim or acknowledge that you can't rather than continue to post excuses like these? For example, I think that the stories about Jesus were adapted from paganism and Greek mythology, which preceded both the Bible and Christianity. In my post (#63), I provided evidence to support my belief rather than make the claim and then post excuses like "It's well documented, but people choose not to believe it," "most decline to accept the facts," or "look on the internet; the material is available to everyone to find." I'm curious to know why you won't put forth the effort to support your belief. Surely, you are prepared to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15) and defend what you believe. I guess the question now is, can you adequately defend what you believe or not?

 

[KWED]

Why did so many the "ethical... pro science" journals dismiss the actual research on the effectiveness of the vaccines, makes and other treatments?

Does this "actual research" consist mainly of YouTube videos with "THE TRUTH ABOUT...!" in the title, by any chance?

 

[Truth in love]

Clearly, not presenting evidence is your style.

I have presented evidence several times. The falsehood is in pretending that it is not.

 

[Truth in love]

If someone makes an extraordinary claim that is impossible under the laws of nature (eg. people rid=sing from the dead), but refuses to provide any evidence to support that claim, then I will dismiss that claim. Seems entirely reasonable.

Clearly, refusing to provide evidence to support your extraordinary claims is your style.

And here you falsely misrepresented my position and the evidence I have presented.

Your choice to not believe the evidence is not the same as their not being any.

 

[Truth in love]

Does this "actual research" consist mainly of YouTube videos with "THE TRUTH ABOUT...!" in the title, by any chance?

No I’ve not seen any of those. I did review summaries of testimony in congressional hearings and news reports in which articles where published or not.

 

[Truth in love]

Is the Bible really all your "Massive evidence" consisted of?

If you believe the Bible simply because it is the Bible, then yes, you are gullible.

1. No it’s not, but given your prejudice against it there is no point in citing the rest. If you where to flatly deny that 2+2=4 and dismiss all math why would anyone bother to try to explain exponents?

2. No more t being the Bible simply means it is the record people tend to be most familiar with. While I do believe the accounts I don’t ascribe supernatural power the text (though some do.)

 

[Truth in love]

Great meme, but lacking a point.

 

[Truth in love]

Simply repeating "But the Bible says!" is not "honest discussion".

That is far from what I have said. I take it that given the many times you have greatly misrepresented what I have said that a real discussion is not what you do. I’ll waste no more time on you and your misrepresentation of me and what I write.

 

[Sheldon]

God is the lawgiver.

Pure assumption.

Hence, He can change the law or make exclusions from the law. This exclusion is a miracle.

Risible nonsense,

For example, a stone falls on the ground, not flying into the cosmos. Latter would be a miracle.

Latter is entirely unevidenced, what an odd coincidence.

People cannot walk on water because they have weight. Jesus Christ has walked on water; this is a miracle.

It is an unevidenced claim.

 

[Truth in love]

Well, there are 'for' and 'against' people in all fields. Medicine is no exception.

Disagreement is normal.

The scary thing is when you mix 1. A mindset like “only what is in a published journal is real” (lost count of people with this mindset on this site). And 2. The extreme gate keeping of “agree with my personal/political view point or you can’t publish”. This crates a very dangerous environment not unlike what we had in the Europe dark ages when you had to conform to all Catholic dogma or you where shut down.


Honest journals evaluate the methodology of the research they don’t exclude quality research based on the results fitting or not fitting with a given view.

 

[KWED]

And here you falsely misrepresented my position and the evidence I have presented.

Your choice to not believe the evidence is not the same as their not being any.

You have not presented any evidence. You have simply made unsupported assertions.
But just to be clear, present your evidence again, and I will look at it, just in case I missed it the first time round.

 

[KWED]

No I’ve not seen any of those. I did review summaries of testimony in congressional hearings and news reports in which articles where published or not.

So what is THE TRUTH! that the scientists have been hiding but you have cleverly discovered?

 

[KWED]

1. No it’s not, but given your prejudice against it there is no point in citing the rest. If you where to flatly deny that 2+2=4 and dismiss all math why would anyone bother to try to explain exponents?

Ah, the "I have evidence, but I'm not showing you" argument.
Always a winner!

2. No more t being the Bible simply means it is the record people tend to be most familiar with. While I do believe the accounts I don’t ascribe supernatural power the text (though some do.)

Why do you think the stories of magic in the Bible are true?

 

[KWED]

Great meme, but lacking a point.

Well, obviously you are not going to see the point, because if you did, you wouldn't have made that staggeringly ironic statement in the first place.

 

[KWED]

That is far from what I have said. I take it that given the many times you have greatly misrepresented what I have said that a real discussion is not what you do. I’ll waste no more time on you and your misrepresentation of me and what I write.

So just to be clear - do you have any "evidence" for the resurrection that is not from the Bible?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Honest journals evaluate the methodology of the research they don’t exclude quality research based on the results fitting or not fitting with a given view.

So, when and which 'honest journal' said that the 'prevailing cosmological model' aka 'Big Bang' is unchangeable and is the 'God's own word'?

 

[Tiberius]

Well I'd start with the Bible.

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

Try again.

 

[Tiberius]

finally something we can agree on.

Glad we agree on that.

 

[Truth in love]

So, when and which 'honest journal' said that the 'prevailing cosmological model' aka 'Big Bang' is unchangeable and is the 'God's own word'?

I’m not aware of that being done.

 

[Truth in love]

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

Try again.

It’s writings by people who saw things. What’s is the problem beyond people not liking the content?