miracles

[Billy The Kid]

currently revising

 

[shunyadragon]

Excellent paper! I have read it before, and I am waiting further dialogue. I do not think he was the first in the Renaissance Humanist movement to argue against miracles, but he does present a complete coherent argument.

Added note: The word following miracle in the dictionary is mirage.

 

[JoshuaTree]

So an isolated miracle doesn't indicate a trend? Must be why they call it a miracle.

 

[shunyadragon]

So an isolated miracle doesn't indicate a trend? Must be why they call it a miracle.

. . . or maybe a mirage.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, I have no doubts as to the existence of miracles (paranormal events). The cumulative evidence to me is overwhelming. I believe so-called miracles to be actually natural but involving forces and entities beyond the physical affecting the physical. There is no violation of natural law but the application of new laws and forces beyond our physical realm.

I also believe there are those that perceive beyond the physical that can tell us much about these things.

And I without doubt hold Sai Baba to be a so-called miracle worker beyond all reasonable doubt. A must read supporting my position would be Erlendur Haraldson Ph.D.'s book Modern Miracles: Sathya Sai Baba The story of a Modern Day Prophet. This is an honest open scientifically educated mind considering the evidence.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

. . . or maybe a mirage.

Luckily not a marriage!

 

[Audie]

Well, I have no doubts as to the existence of miracles (paranormal events). The cumulative evidence to me is overwhelming. I believe so-called miracles to be actually natural but involving forces and entities beyond the physical affecting the physical. There is no violation of natural law but the application of new laws and forces beyond our physical realm.

I also believe there are those that perceive beyond the physical that can tell us much about these things.

And I without doubt hold Sai Baba to be a so-called miracle worker beyond all reasonable doubt. A must read supporting my position would be Erlendur Haraldson Ph.D.'s book Modern Miracles: Sathya Sai Baba The story of a Modern Day Prophet. This is an honest open scientifically educated mind considering the evidence.

Not everyone thinks so. Where do you get the "honest open scientific" thing?
Did you just say that, or do you have a reason?

good old wiki-

Their data collection methods drew criticism from the scientific community.[16] According to Terence Hines:

Osis and Haraldsson’s (1977) study was based on replies received from ten thousand questionnaires sent to doctors and nurses in the United States and India. Only 6.4 percent were returned. Since it was the doctors and nurses who were giving the reports, not the patients who had, presumably, actually had the experience, the reports were secondhand. This means they had passed through two highly fallible and constructive human memory systems (the doctor’s or nurse’s and the actual patient’s) before reaching Osis and Haraldsson.[17]

The psychologist James Alcock criticized the study as it was anecdotal and described their results as "unreliable and unintepretable."[18] Paul Kurtz also criticized the study, saying all of the data was second-hand and influenced by cultural expectations.[19]

 

[George-ananda]

Not everyone thinks so. Where do you get the "honest open scientific" thing?
Did you just say that, or do you have a reason?

I studied this intently for myself and formed my own opinion. In controversial fields like this, you must study and think for yourself.

good old wiki-

Wiki used to be fairly good but paranormal subjects are now dominated by anti-paranormal people. Here's what happened: Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

Their data collection methods drew criticism from the scientific community.[16] According to Terence Hines:

Osis and Haraldsson’s (1977) study was based on replies received from ten thousand questionnaires sent to doctors and nurses in the United States and India. Only 6.4 percent were returned. Since it was the doctors and nurses who were giving the reports, not the patients who had, presumably, actually had the experience, the reports were secondhand. This means they had passed through two highly fallible and constructive human memory systems (the doctor’s or nurse’s and the actual patient’s) before reaching Osis and Haraldsson.[17]

The psychologist James Alcock criticized the study as it was anecdotal and described their results as "unreliable and unintepretable."[18] Paul Kurtz also criticized the study, saying all of the data was second-hand and influenced by cultural expectations.[19]

First, that has nothing to do with the investigation into Sai Baba which is what I was talking about. It is about an unrelated study.

Secondly, it's Wikipedia. I challenge you to find any positive article about any paranormal study or researcher supporting paranormal phenomena. The article will have a one-sided slant and quote the same 'good ole' collection of pseudo-skeptics.

 

[Audie]

I studied this intently for myself and formed my own opinion. In controversial fields like this, you must study and think for yourself.
Wiki used to be fairly good but paranormal subjects are now dominated by anti-paranormal people. Here's what happened: Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

First, that has nothing to do with the investigation into Sai Baba which is what I was talking about. It is about an unrelated study.

Secondly, it's Wikipedia. I challenge you to find any positive article about any paranormal study or researcher supporting paranormal phenomena. The article will have a one-sided slant and quote the same 'good ole' collection of pseudo-skeptics.

Ok, so the thing about honest and scientific was
simply your opinion, stated as fact. Is that honest?

The wiki article certainly relates to his professional reputation.

The so-typical thing you do, claiming bias on the part of
anything that does not agree with you is unworthy of someone who even claims to think for himself.

You of course attacked the source rather than contesting the facts presented about second hand, hearsay etc.

there is plenty more on his highly questionable "science"
'Modern Miracles' revised - a travesty of investigation

Wiki used to be fairly good but paranormal subjects are now dominated by anti-paranormal people. Here's what happened

Nobody has ever anywhere once scientifically
demonstrated something "paranormal".

That is what happened. Or rather, what has not happened.

Until someone does, all this talk is merely tiresome blather, like talking about Atlantis or Chupacabre.


PS I find it best to think for myself in all fields, not merely those that are considered controversial.
Actually, particularly the ones that are thought to be settled.

 

[George-ananda]

Ok, so the thing about honest and scientific was
simply your opinion, stated as fact. Is that honest?

Correct. Such statements are always opinions. Who officially determines what is 'honest and scientific'. There is no official judge, we each have to be our own judge then.

The so-typical thing you do, claiming bias on the part of
anything that does not agree with you is unworthy of someone who even claims to think for himself.

No, I don't claim bias because it disagrees with me. I claim bias as a result of listening to the evidence and argumentation from all sides for decades now and forming a reasoned unbiased personal judgment of what is going on. I definitely believe some people have developed an irrational anti-paranormal bias.

 

[Audie]

Correct. Such statements are always opinions. Who officially determines what is 'honest and scientific'. There is no official judge, we each have to be our own judge then. No, I don't claim bias because it disagrees with me. I claim bias as a result of listening to the evidence and argumentation from all sides for decades now and forming a reasoned unbiased personal judgment of what is going on. I definitely believe some people have developed an irrational anti-paranormal bias.

The evidence?

Nobody anywhere has ever been able to demonstrate that any paranormal phenom. exists.

Irrational is to stubbornly cling to belief despite
such abject failure.

 

[George-ananda]

Nobody anywhere has ever been able to demonstrate that any paranormal phenom. exists.

I believe that to be false. I believe there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence to command belief. Also, I believe there is scientific evidence showing fantastic odds against chance in controlled scientific experiments in the fields of telepathy, remote viewing and gifted mediumship as examples.

 

[Audie]

I believe that to be false. I believe there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence to command belief. Also, I believe there is scientific evidence showing fantastic odds against chance in controlled scientific experiments in the fields of telepathy, remote viewing and gifted mediumship as examples.

You were talking about reputable honest science?

Anecdotal evidence is evidence of anecdotes.
No more.

You do know the anecdotal evidence of mermaids and
chupacabre? Alien abductions? That you even mention anecdotes shows the paucity of your presentation.

Your belief in "scientific evidence" is only evidence of your belief, though secondarily it may be evidence of
naive credulity.

I repeat, with no fear at all of being shown wrong:

Nobody has ever been able to scientifically demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon of any sort.

You want to believe in it, fine; your misfortune and none of my own.

It is best though to state your beliefs as just that, beliefs, dont you think? Like your widely contradicted belief in the scientific integrity or your Ieelander.
Dont state it as fact.

Or say that people who actually expect some rigour are being irrational.

 

[metis]

Personally, I don't believe in miracles, however I won't go so far as to say they can't happen.

 

[Audie]

Personally, I don't believe in miracles, however I won't go so far as to say they can't happen.

Sheesh, who would? You sure cannot prove they cannot happen.

That is altogether different from claims of scientific evidence to support them.

 

[Vinayaka]

If someone could actually do a miracle, why not do one that helps humanity, like create rain in a drought stricken region? I guess that would be too logical.

 

[allright]

In 1973 George W Davis went to a Christian Katherine Kuhlman meeting.
He had a bad heart and had an operation to place a pacemaker in his chest.
Miss Kuhlman prayed for him
When he went home the incision scar from the operation had disappeared from his chest and he could'nt feel the pacemaker
inside his chest
He went to his cardiologist a week later. His EKG was perfect
The doctor had him xrayed from head to toe to try and find the pacemaker,
The cardiologist was so upset he had him come back the next week to be examined by a team of seven cardiologist, at least one or more from the medical board at Harvard
After a thorough examination there only comment was "Its the strangest case we've every seen" and they went home
Another Doctor on his case testified "I can confirm Mr Davis had a pacemaker placed inside his chest and now the pacemaker and incision scar are gone. Its all in his records"
He appeared on nation television and the miracle was part of Miss Kuhlman's biography. a national best seller. He may still be alive.

 

[Audie]

In 1973 George W Davis went to a Christian Katherine Kuhlman meeting.
He had a bad heart and had an operation to place a pacemaker in his chest.
Miss Kuhlman prayed for him
When he went home the incision scar from the operation had disappeared from his chest and he could'nt feel the pacemaker
inside his chest
He went to his cardiologist a week later. His EKG was perfect
The doctor had him xrayed from head to toe to try and find the pacemaker,
The cardiologist was so upset he had him come back the next week to be examined by a team of seven cardiologist, at least one or more from the medical board at Harvard
After a thorough examination there only comment was "Its the strangest case we've every seen" and they went home
Another Doctor on his case testified "I can confirm Mr Davis had a pacemaker placed inside his chest and now the pacemaker and incision scar are gone. Its all in his records"
He appeared on nation television and the miracle was part of Miss Kuhlman's biography. a national best seller. He may still be alive.

And you believe that?


You show me a "miracle" like that written up in Lancet,
or the AMA Journal, then that will be interesting.

Ever wonder why none of these so called "miracles"
ever grow back an eye or leg?

Probably not. Risky, to think.

 

[Skwim]

In 1973 George W Davis went to a Christian Katherine Kuhlman meeting.
He had a bad heart and had an operation to place a pacemaker in his chest.
Miss Kuhlman prayed for him
When he went home the incision scar from the operation had disappeared from his chest and he could'nt feel the pacemaker
inside his chest
He went to his cardiologist a week later. His EKG was perfect
The doctor had him xrayed from head to toe to try and find the pacemaker,
The cardiologist was so upset he had him come back the next week to be examined by a team of seven cardiologist, at least one or more from the medical board at Harvard
After a thorough examination there only comment was "Its the strangest case we've every seen" and they went home
Another Doctor on his case testified "I can confirm Mr Davis had a pacemaker placed inside his chest and now the pacemaker and incision scar are gone. Its all in his records"

So the story goes. BTW, I've got this bridge I'd like to get off my hands . . . . .

.

.

 

[allright]

And you believe that?


You show me a "miracle" like that written up in Lancet,
or the AMA Journal, then that will be interesting.

Ever wonder why none of these so called "miracles"
ever grow back an eye or leg?

Probably not. Risky, to think.

Everyone was trying to prove Katherine Kuhlman was a fraud. What an chance with a claim like this All they had to do was contact his doctor Find me anyone who investigated this miracle and claimed it wasnt true This miracle was proclaimed to the entire country right after it happened