Who has the burden of proof?

[Sapiens]

It is basic Thermodynamics. Put an inflated balloon in a low pressure environment and the Balloon will eventually deflate until both the outside and inside pressure are equal. Everything tends to entropy. It is just a naturalistic fixed law of the universe. Do the same with our bodies and the first thing that will happen is your blood will boil breaking those bondings straight away and your inners will spew out through the breaks.

No, no, no. First the balloon will expand due to the decreased pressure, then (if it doe not rupture) it will deflate as molecules of gas defuse out of it driven by the pressure created by the elastic walls of the balloon. You know just enough physics to be dangerous to yourself.

The next one is a monumental case of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are totally ignorant to the facts. The astronauts were in atmospheric pressure from the time they left earth until they got back. Either in their spacesuits or in the shuttle they never experienced anything but atmospheric pressure.

No, no, no. Apollo use[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a pure oxygen environment at one-third atmospheric pressure (5 psi). This created a problem for the Soyuz linkup since the Soviet capsule used an 80-percent nitrogen 20-percent oxygen environment at a pressure of one full atmosphere (14.7 psi) and had to match atmospheres prior to personnel linkup. [/FONT]

NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.


One atmosphere would have ripped the Lunar Module and the suits apart. For Apollo 11, 12, & 14, during EVA preparation, the suit relative pressures were 4.6 to 5.2 psi when the Lunar Module cabin pressure was 3.5 psi, giving suit absolute pressures of 8.1 to 8.7 psi pure oxygen. According to the Apollo 12 ALSJ, the suits were already difficult to bend at 3.8 psi relative pressure (when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi). When the suit pressures were at about 4.5 psi relative pressure, the suits were very stiff.



The shuttles flew at about 2/3 of an atmosphere.

Gravitational acceleration is a component of atmospheric pressure. Increase it and atmospheric pressure will also be increased. They are inseparably connected.

Again, that's your usual half truth. You ignore the role played by the avereaged molecular weight of the gas mix.

Vacuum, are you for real? A vacuum is an empty space in which there is no air or other gas : a space from which all or most of the air has been removed, pressure is not a function of a vacuum. You can be crushed in a vacuum.

Vacuum doe not crush, quite the opposite.

Look, I am not a scientist, I only took physics to "A" level, but this stuff is fundamental physics.

That you are not a scientist shows, you'd do well to remember that in future posts.

Note: at the instance of Serenity7855, looking as he is to duck having to offer an answer to his lack of knowledge and background, I am happy to acknowledge that some of the facts here were gather from the internet, primarily Wikipedia, and do not represent original work on my part.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Individuals, yes, but we were talking about undeniable large scale miracle or scientifically proven miracle. There has never been a miracle claim that someone like yourself could not call BS.

Which is exactly why I want them to demonstrate their miracle claims in a scientific environment - because then I won't be able to call BS. I have yet to see a good argument as to how or why they cannot be done.

The higher beings take smaller bites with their miracles and I'm saying there is a wisdom there.

And I don't. I see it is an extremely poor way to both service your believers and improve the lives of your creation, as well as enforcing nothing but credulity.

First thought is there are a 1,001 different beliefs out there. Whatever happens will not jibe with someone's worldview.

But those people would now be aware that their worldview is not shared by God and, unless they're irredeemably stupid, will change their view to gain the benefits. You can't prevent a minority of people from being that stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority most likely would change their opinion if you give them a good enough reason to.

I think we as a whole are progressing in our view of the universe. Just in my lifetime I know 'new agey' things are much more generally known and not considered just 'crazy' stuff as it was in my youth. I think we are moving to greater collective understanding but wisdom dictates it happens inch by inch and not dramatically.

For me, the prevalence of "new-agey" views isn't so much evidence of an increase of collective understanding, but evidence of a society that is becoming more global and far-reaching, enabling us to learn about and adopt belief structures that we otherwise may never have heard of. I'd attribute it more to the rise of the information age, coupled with society as a whole (in the western world, at least) becoming more liberal and reacting against the traditional, rigid religious structures, than I would attribute to an increase in any kind of "understanding" or "wisdom", but that's a whole other topic.

I believe miracles require the will of intercessory agents. Their will is governed by a wisdom greater than mine. And again i think the main point of it all is not physical health (we will grow decrepit and die anyway) but the real goal is finding truth through spiritual efforts. And even many atheists are making progress to that goal with humanistic compassion.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't really answer my objection. Whether or not miracles occur by the will of intercessory agents, is there any reason why these miracles cannot be demonstrated to occur under reasonable experimental conditions?

As a student of the many types of paranormal phenomena, I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe the physical realm is not all there is. What is this 'more'? The masters of the Hindu tradition have given me the most reasonable and believable worldview I have heard after objectively considering all evidence and argumentation from all sides of the issue. I don't have proof but know their path brings me more peace and well-being. Someday I may EXPERIENCE the Truth.

Again, I'm afraid you've not really answered my question. Do you or do you not agree that it is foolish to believe in something for which there is insufficient objectively verifiable evidence?

I believe that we are not just physical beings and that the more advanced beings experience and sense beyond the physical and many dedicate themselves to teaching.

That's your belief - fine. But what I want to know is: is it true? Can you validate it in any objective way? And if not, why not? Why is it a bad thing to know something for sure (to the best of your ability) through objective verification before jumping to a conclusion about it?

Then you will have a physical-only view of the universe using this method. But from my objective study of paranormal phenomenon and from my close observation and study of the eastern masters, I believe you will be cheating yourself of knowledge of things that really matter.

So you keep saying, but in several debates with you in the past you have yet to present anything that compels me to believe that your beliefs are, in any way, true. You can assert that I'm cheating myself out of knowledge if you like, but from my point of view you're merely cheating yourself out of reality. In all of my personal research (as well as the combined research of all the greatest minds throughout history) nobody has ever objectively established the existence of anything beyond the physical world, and nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated to have ever occurred. People can and have believed it, in all manner of ways, but for all that supposed wisdom we still have absolutely no hard evidence of the supernatural in any form. It all boils down to faith, and faith is without any value whatsoever in determining truth.

 

[Serenity7855]

No, no, no. First the balloon will expand due to the decreased pressure, then (if it doe not rupture) it will deflate as molecules of gas defuse out of it driven by the pressure created by the elastic walls of the balloon. You know just enough physics to be dangerous to yourself.
No, no, no. Apollo use[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a pure oxygen environment at one-third atmospheric pressure (5 psi). This created a problem for the Soyuz linkup since the Soviet capsule used an 80-percent nitrogen 20-percent oxygen environment at a pressure of one full atmosphere (14.7 psi) and had to match atmospheres prior to personnel linkup. [/FONT]

NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.


One atmosphere would have ripped the Lunar Module and the suits apart. For Apollo 11, 12, & 14, during EVA preparation, the suit relative pressures were 4.6 to 5.2 psi when the Lunar Module cabin pressure was 3.5 psi, giving suit absolute pressures of 8.1 to 8.7 psi pure oxygen. According to the Apollo 12 ALSJ, the suits were already difficult to bend at 3.8 psi relative pressure (when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi). When the suit pressures were at about 4.5 psi relative pressure, the suits were very stiff.



The shuttles flew at about 2/3 of an atmosphere.

Again, that's your usual half truth. You ignore the role played by the avereaged molecular weight of the gas mix.
Vacuum doe not crush, quite the opposite.
That you are not a scientist shows, you'd do well to remember that in future posts.

I cannot respond to this. You have plagiarised the information in and attempt to exalt yourself. I just inserted your text into Google and it all came up verbatim. You are dishonest Sir, which I suppose is your perogative, since you have no higher being to be accountable to. Your post is worthless as they are somebody else's words and not yours, which indicates that you are selling yourself as someone you are not. How can I tell. Your spelling and grammar is almost as bad as mine, until we get to the bits you copied and pasted. I am not going to give details, you know what you have done. The only qualification you have is in searching the Internet using Google. Shame on you . why didn't you just source the quotes. I wonder if you will be ignoring this post as well.

This was the first one I found.
Apollo Oxygen And Two-Gas Environment Problems

 

[outhouse]

You will probably be unaware of this, but, I, and my intellectual capabilities is not up for debate. .

It is when you force a lack of reason on others/

Our internal organs would fail under any longterm fluctuations in atmospheric pressure

Correct, so?

. We would need long periods of evolution to adapt to pressure changes by which time we would all be extinct

Correct, so what?


Why invoke magic and mythology?

 

[Skeptisch]

How would one prove what does not exist?

 

[Serenity7855]

Then the answer is utterly useless. Faith means nothing other than accepting things without evidence, and living by a creed based solely on credulity. Any God who relies on faith over reason is either a fool or a monster.

It is not polite to accuse the God that I worship of being a fool or a monster, especially as if not for him you would not exist. I have evidence. I would like for you to have that evidence but I cannot give you my evidence as it only pertains to me. God has been very considerate and caring. He has given everyone who has ever lived and will ever live a method by which they to can obtain their own personal witness of divinity. Her is all that you have to do and you to can know God. Will you take up the challenge? Oh, I doubt it. It is much more fun contending with the theists.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the btruth of all things.

And that would be nothing but a good thing. Reliance on faith is no different to relying on blind ignorance - any reasonable God should not encourage it, but should encourage skepticism and reason. In fact, many religious texts say that that's precisely what God asks their followers to do, and yet when it comes to miracles it suddenly becomes all about faith.

Reliance on faith is to have knowledge of that which you have faith in. It is not blind it is just not conclusive. Relying on blind ignorance requires no knowledge.

Miracles are not all about faith in Christ, they are about faith in the ability to heal. I do not know how you have confused it.

I am a Christian, dyed in the wool, I am sceptical and I reason the entire plan of salvation but to no other conclusion then it is real, alive and thriving in my very being. I am flying without wings. God has said " And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." that is "ALL THINGS"

Well, I'm not remotely interested in faith. If that's enough for you, then fine, but if all you have to back up your assertions with is faith then I don't see how any kind of reasonable debate, discussion or dialogue can be opened between believers and non-believers.

You are absolutely right. That is the most honest and accurate statement that I have ever heard from an atheist. Very inspiring. There is no way that you will ever agree with me or me with you unless that is what you seek. You don't seek it so leave it alone.

So how do you distinguish between a miraculous event and a non-miraculous event? I would have thought the distinction is implied.

This is what took the time in responding to you. I do not think I have an answer for you. I guess it could relate to the source of the healing, whether it be from within ourselves or from the authority of God. I will have to concede that I need to investigate it further, and pray about it.

If that's true, then I see no reason why healing by faith couldn't be demonstrated under reasonable experimental conditions.

It has, with results being inconclusive. It is tantamount to handing your notice in if you support the idea of healing by faith, however, I can vouch that my physician recommended that I see a faith healer to help in the cure of a nasty illness, that, by rights, I should have died from. Was it the faith healing that cured me or the medication. I do not know, but the point of the story is that the Doctor, a scientist of human biology, suggested it.

Can you provide a source? You don't have to provide it if you feel it's too personal - but then again, why would you even tell me of this event if it's too personal to share the details? Are you prepared to demonstrate that this event occurred?

No, of course not. What would it matter. You are happy as you are. This would only complicate your life. Why can I not give details? Because I would have to get permission from those involved which would raise eyebrows, as two of them are Atheists. Not worth compromising friendships. No, I do not feel it to be ethical.

So when an article is written explaining how and why miraculous claims can be frauds or the result of people simply being wrong its "articles full of bigotry and lies", and yet religious organizations keeping records of supposed events that are specifically tailored to support their particular belief structure cannot possibly be deceptive or untrue on any level?

Not at all. I do not trust the words of any denomination. I do not rely upon the arm of flesh but in the arm of God. None of us are perfect.

Sorry, no. I could just as easily search for any of the countless numbers of supposed alien abductions or autopsies. There are many supposed accounts of people being reincarnated or experiencing past lives. Countless sightings of bigfoot. I'm not interested in accounts - I'm interested in facts. If there are any stories with can be factually corroborated, I'm interested and would be willing to have a look at them. Anything else is totally useless to me.

That is a shame as you cut yourself out of many thought provoking occurrences.

Again, I'm sorry, but I'm only interested in facts - not stories. I appreciate you going to all the effort of finding these stories, but the effort seems disproportionate if I'm expected to go through each and every story you can give me and find the flaws or lack of corroboration. Could you instead, perhaps, give me your best and most corroborated example?

That is OK, I haven't seen them before so someone has benefitted from it. I took a look outside this morning at the green fields over the hills. I sought no evidence that the grass was green. I just knew it was. I had to trust my senses. I could not ask my nieghbour if they were green as he might lie to me or perhaps see a different colour through his eyes. There is no evidence that can show that the white light that shines on the grass makes it green in colour. We cannot use numbers as argumentum ad populum fallacy, numbers saying it is green may still be wrong. Do you believe me when I say that there is green grass hills outside my house? Would you expect them to be blue or would you have to see them yourself to believe it?

 

[Serenity7855]

It is when you force a lack of reason on others/

No, under no circumstances should you attack the person instead of the post. Maybe you should revise the rules.

Correct, so?

Correct, so what?


Why invoke magic and mythology?

I haven't invoked magic or mythology. Those are your labels not mine

 

[Serenity7855]

How would one prove what does not exist?

You cannot prove anything that does not exist. I cannot prove something that I know exists but you can.

 

[Sapiens]

I cannot respond to this. You have plagiarised the information in and attempt to exalt yourself. I just inserted your text into Google and it all came up verbatim. You are dishonest Sir, which I suppose is your perogative, since you have no higher being to be accountable to. Your post is worthless as they are somebody else's words and not yours, which indicates that you are selling yourself as someone you are not. How can I tell. Your selling and grammar is almost as bad as mine until we get to the bits you copied and pasted. I am not going to give details, you know what you have done. The only qualification you have is in searching the Internet using Google. Shame on you . why didn't you just source the quotes.

This was the first one I found.
Apollo Oxygen And Two-Gas Environment Problems

Nice try at avoiding the real issue. BTW: cutting and pasting off WIKI is within the fair use agreement, there is no more expectation of claim of original authorship that there is when y'all post Bible quotes without author and source attribution. So instead of calling names, deal with the issues. In any case, how do you know that I did not write those wiki pages ... I am, after all, an acknowledged expert on life support systems.

 

[Serenity7855]

Nice try at avoiding the real issue. BTW: cutting and pasting off WIKI is within the fair use agreement, there is no more expectation of claim of original authorship that there is when y'all post Bible quotes without author and source attribution. So instead of calling names, deal with the issues. In any case, how do you know that I did not write those wiki pages ... I am, after all, an acknowledged expert on life support systems.

You have to source it, otherwise you are trying to portray the words as your own. Nothing to do with copy writing and everything to do with ethics. You have been dishonest.

If you are, as you say, an acknowledged expert on life support systems, why are you plagiarising, I am an environmental engineer but what does that mean, that I cannot be wrong, that posters should listen to me because I have a qualification and designed the first freezer condenser that can be fitted vertically on the bulkhead saving on fuel by reducing the drag coefficients. I have no time for arrogance born out of education. Any one can learn knowledge, it is the wise man who uses it to benefit other and not to show off, as you are doing here.

 

[Sapiens]

No, these are just facts, not matters of creative endeavors, no different than cutting and pasting a phrase that says "the sky is blue."

In fact, here it is from WIKI: "Wikipedia's text content, in a nutshell, can be used under the terms of the CC-BY-SA; unless otherwise indicated."

Now had I quoted an entire article or an individual's piece of work, that would be a different story.

So you might step down from that high horse that you do not know how to ride ... you might hurt yourself, as you are now exposing yourself to libel and slander charges (not that I really care).

So once again, good try at derailing an expose your lack of knowledge, I will go back and add an attribution so that you may answer the questions without feeling bad.

 

[outhouse]

You cannot prove anything that does not exist. .

We can prove it is plagiarized Canaanite mythology, and have done so.


You just refuse to accept education and knowledge

 

[Skwim]

I cannot respond to this. You have plagiarised the information in and attempt to exalt yourself. I just inserted your text into Google and it all came up verbatim. You are dishonest Sir, which I suppose is your perogative, since you have no higher being to be accountable to. Your post is worthless as they are somebody else's words and not yours, which indicates that you are selling yourself as someone you are not. How can I tell. Your spelling and grammar is almost as bad as mine, until we get to the bits you copied and pasted. I am not going to give details, you know what you have done. The only qualification you have is in searching the Internet using Google. Shame on you . why didn't you just source the quotes. I wonder if you will be ignoring this post as well.

This was the first one I found.
Apollo Oxygen And Two-Gas Environment Problems

So, if a quote is from an internet source and that source is credited it then has more truth value than one that is not credited; like your post (#124) in this thread?

by John and Anne Spencer

There have been many reports of stigmata over the years but few have been closely studied. John and Anne Spencer were given a rare opportunity to do so, with the help of the late Mrs Heather Woods.

Over the past 770 years around 300 to 350 people have reported an extraordinary phenomenon. They have displayed, for all to see, wounds on their bodies - and particularly their hands and feet - that they believe represent the crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ. Research shows that within religious circles there may have been many more stigmatics; many believe that their suffering is a private experience not to be made public. Certainly one recent case, Mrs Heather Woods of Lincoln, only made her marks public when she was 'told' in a message from the Lord that they could be.
Stigmata ASSAP

​

Interesting, particularly in light of this little comment you once made.

Do you really believe that if someone posts it on the internet then it must be true.

Source
​

Obviously the answer is "No," yet it didn't deter you from presenting your little John and Anne Spencer piece as credible evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

Which is exactly why I want them to demonstrate their miracle claims in a scientific environment - because then I won't be able to call BS. I have yet to see a good argument as to how or why they cannot be done.


And I don't. I see it is an extremely poor way to both service your believers and improve the lives of your creation, as well as enforcing nothing but credulity.

Miracles by their nature are generally unpredictable events and thus not subject to a controlled environment. The strongest cases of healing miracles happen spontaneously. I don't know that there are any healers that can line up blind people outside a laboratory door and bring them in and heal on demand.

But those people would now be aware that their worldview is not shared by God and, unless they're irredeemably stupid, will change their view to gain the benefits. You can't prevent a minority of people from being that stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority most likely would change their opinion if you give them a good enough reason to.

A healing miracle would not even prove God or any one god or some might even say demons or whatever. Spontaneous healing is, I believe, already recognized by science.

Again, I'm afraid you've not really answered my question. Do you or do you not agree that it is foolish to believe in something for which there is insufficient objectively verifiable evidence?

No, anecdotal evidence considered objectively from all points of view can also effect my view of the universe.

That's your belief - fine. But what I want to know is: is it true? Can you validate it in any objective way? And if not, why not? Why is it a bad thing to know something for sure (to the best of your ability) through objective verification before jumping to a conclusion about it?

No, I can't objectively validate anything to you. It is just the most reasonable understanding I can form by objectively considering all evidence and argumentation from all sides.

So you keep saying, but in several debates with you in the past you have yet to present anything that compels me to believe that your beliefs are, in any way, true. You can assert that I'm cheating myself out of knowledge if you like, but from my point of view you're merely cheating yourself out of reality. In all of my personal research (as well as the combined research of all the greatest minds throughout history) nobody has ever objectively established the existence of anything beyond the physical world, and nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated to have ever occurred. People can and have believed it, in all manner of ways, but for all that supposed wisdom we still have absolutely no hard evidence of the supernatural in any form. It all boils down to faith, and faith is without any value whatsoever in determining truth.

It is not faith at all for me. It is the most objectively reasonable beliefs I know. From my study and consideration the physical-only worldview does not satisfactorily explain the entire range of human experience.

 

[Serenity7855]

So, if a quote is from an internet source and that source is credited it then has more truth value than one that is not credited; like your post (#124) in this thread?

by John and Anne Spencer

There have been many reports of stigmata over the years but few have been closely studied. John and Anne Spencer were given a rare opportunity to do so, with the help of the late Mrs Heather Woods.

Over the past 770 years around 300 to 350 people have reported an extraordinary phenomenon. They have displayed, for all to see, wounds on their bodies - and particularly their hands and feet - that they believe represent the crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ. Research shows that within religious circles there may have been many more stigmatics; many believe that their suffering is a private experience not to be made public. Certainly one recent case, Mrs Heather Woods of Lincoln, only made her marks public when she was 'told' in a message from the Lord that they could be.
Stigmata ASSAP

​

Interesting, particularly in light of this little comment you once made.

Source
​

Obviously the answer is "No," yet it didn't deter you from presenting your little John and Anne Spencer piece as credible evidence.

You are quite a jekyll and Hyde aren't you? You say you do not want to continue the debate yet you monitor the thread waiting for a mistake or an error to pounce on. That is a knew one on me. Congratulations.

Now, you see you are defending the jndefensible, which is bad for you but a pleasure for me.

pla•gia•rism (ˈpleɪ dʒəˌrɪz əm, -dʒi əˌrɪz-)

n.
1. the unauthorized use of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own.
2. something used and represented in this manner.

The free dictionary

It is unethical to take someone else's words and portray them as your own. Your friend has done exactly that and as a consequence has damaged his reputation and brought scepticism to his words, especially as he feebly tries to defend the duplicitous deception.

Rule 7 clearly forbids what you are defending.

7. Referencing, Quotations, Videos, and Links

To quote another author you should identify the Title, Author, and Publisher, when available. You may insert a short paragraph or one or two sentences from it into your post, showing a link to the source. Plagiarism is illegal and never permitted. When using material in this way, you must indicate the significance of the material in your own words. Posts that just show a link and source material will be removed. This rule will be enforced with in our understanding of intellectual property rights and fair use.

You cannot defend this. You agreed to the rules. This is a blatant contravention of those rules as it is intentional plagiarism. What ever I post has a source. The veracity of what I post is subjective and you have the right to believe it or not. You can do this because I have disclosed the source. Your friend has not. You might take my advice and step back from this as well. I have not reported it but I will if people like you try and justify such unethical and dishonest behaviour.

As we are back debating again, and not evading, this remark you made "Obviously the answer is "No," yet it didn't deter you from presenting your little John and Anne Spencer piece as credible evidence. " is quite true. Not everything that you read on the internet is true, including this article, however, it give an insight into what people believe. I am exonerated though. I did not write it. I quoted it. You choose whether to believe it or not. But I have made it clear that it is someone else's opinion and not mine, and sourced it. Whether it is fact or fiction is irrelevant.

 

[Sapiens]

Miracles by their nature are generally unpredictable events and thus not subject to a controlled environment. The strongest cases of healing miracles happen spontaneously. I don't know that there are any healers that can line up blind people outside a laboratory door and bring them in and heal on demand.

There is even doubt about single cases, however I must admit that I would be hard pressed to deny the miracle status of someone who can do what you describe.

A healing miracle would not even prove God or any one god or some might even say demons or whatever. Spontaneous healing is, I believe, already recognized by science.

Indeed it is, however, limb regrowth in humans is unheard to, thus lining up a thousand, or more, amputees and demonstrating limb regrowth in only one would also have to be classified as a genuine miracle.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is not polite to accuse the God that I worship of being a fool or a monster, especially as if not for him you would not exist.

It's perfectly reasonable to accuse a supposed God who values faith and credulity over the gift of reason and rationality that he has bestowed upon his creation. There's no two ways about it. They are either a fool who doesn't understand why knowledge and reason are superior to ignorance, or a monster who genuinely thinks it is better to believe things without good reason and is willing to go so far as to intentionally mislead people who try to use reason or rationality and then punish them for it.

I have evidence. I would like for you to have that evidence

Before I read the rest of this sentence, I already know that there is a "but" coming...

but I cannot give you my evidence as it only pertains to me.

I was right! Okay, it was a cheap shot, but whaddyagonnado?

If your evidence only pertains to you, then it's not evidence. It's an unverifiable personal experience. It may be real to you, but in attempting to establish the objective truth value of a claim a personal experience simply isn't reliable enough on its own - especially when the claim is extraordinary. There is no way to distinguish between your personal "evidence" and anybody else's personal "evidence" that they were abducted by aliens, or had a past life.

God has been very considerate and caring. He has given everyone who has ever lived and will ever live a method by which they to can obtain their own personal witness of divinity. Her is all that you have to do and you to can know God. Will you take up the challenge? Oh, I doubt it. It is much more fun contending with the theists.

There's nothing "challenging" about giving up my capacity for reason and instead embracing faith and personal delusion, which is exactly what I would have to do at this stage in order to believe in any form of God.

Reliance on faith is to have knowledge of that which you have faith in. It is not blind it is just not conclusive. Relying on blind ignorance requires no knowledge.

Knowledge is something learned and verified through facts. You have no facts to support your belief, just faith. You believe what you believe because of faith, and you know it is correct because you have faith in your knowledge. It's just some bizarre form of circular reasoning.

Miracles are not all about faith in Christ, they are about faith in the ability to heal. I do not know how you have confused it.

Where did I say that?

I am a Christian, dyed in the wool, I am sceptical and I reason the entire plan of salvation but to no other conclusion then it is real, alive and thriving in my very being. I am flying without wings. God has said " And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." that is "ALL THINGS"

If you were a skeptic, you wouldn't lean almost entirely upon the Bible as your source of knowledge. Any reasonable and skeptical person knows that no source should ever be taken at its own word.

You are absolutely right. That is the most honest and accurate statement that I have ever heard from an atheist. Very inspiring. There is no way that you will ever agree with me or me with you unless that is what you seek. You don't seek it so leave it alone.

You commend me for being honest, then you completely miss the point of what I'm actually saying. I never said "there is no way I will ever agree with you", I clearly said "if all you have to back up your beliefs with is faith, then no reasonable dialogue can exist between us because faith is useless in the establishing of truth". In other words, if you rely on faith then you rely on nothing, and I cannot reason you out of a position which depends upon you having absolutely no good reason to believe what you believe. Until you can understand why I think faith is useless, and can provide something more than mere faith, there is no more of a point in debating you since you're too mired in delusion to realize the fact that faith is an empty, hollow gesture. That's not to say you have to relinquish your faith in order to debate me - just understand that, for a skeptical individual who relies on facts and evidence - faith is not only irrelevant, but a negative.

This is what took the time in responding to you. I do not think I have an answer for you. I guess it could relate to the source of the healing, whether it be from within ourselves or from the authority of God. I will have to concede that I need to investigate it further, and pray about it.

That's fine. It's a difficult question, but I tend to start at the basic definition of a "miracle" in saying that it is "an event for which the only possible explanation is some form of divine intervention". It's a tricky area to wade into, because the term tends to get thrown around so much these days. A child can survive a head wound from a gun and the media will label it "a miracle" these days. I suppose the line I'm trying to draw is the one that separates an event which is just "unexplained and/or extremely unlikely" from an event which is "necessarily the result of divine intervention", and I'll be the first to admit that this line is extremely, extremely difficult to cross.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It has, with results being inconclusive. It is tantamount to handing your notice in if you support the idea of healing by faith, however, I can vouch that my physician recommended that I see a faith healer to help in the cure of a nasty illness, that, by rights, I should have died from. Was it the faith healing that cured me or the medication. I do not know, but the point of the story is that the Doctor, a scientist of human biology, suggested it.

Are you willing to call this merely an "unexplained" event, however? Is it necessarily miraculous, or are you willing to admit the possibility of another, naturalistic explanation?

No, of course not. What would it matter. You are happy as you are. This would only complicate your life.

I think you can let ME decide what facts I'm willing to take into my life or not. If you have the facts, please present them. I am asking.

Why can I not give details? Because I would have to get permission from those involved which would raise eyebrows, as two of them are Atheists. Not worth compromising friendships. No, I do not feel it to be ethical.

So, two of your friends - who "miraculously" survived terminal illnesses - are atheists? Again, I ask, are you open to the possibility that their survival was not actually "miraculous"?

That is a shame as you cut yourself out of many thought provoking occurrences.

I've read many of them, and none were particularly compelling. The most thought provoking ones did not provoke thoughts of "Maybe God/heaven/hell/spirits exist", but more a sense of "Isn't the human mind a bizarre and wonderful thing to be able to conjure this stuff up".

That is OK, I haven't seen them before so someone has benefitted from it. I took a look outside this morning at the green fields over the hills. I sought no evidence that the grass was green. I just knew it was.

Actually, no. "Green" is our eyes way of interpreting a particular wavelength of light. You knew it was green because your eyes distinguish that particular wavelength from the surrounding wavelengths of light, and because you have been taught to identify that particular wavelength by the moniker of "the colour green". You did not "just know" - you observed the grass and your brain made a simple connection between the wavelength of light and your knowledge of the colour green.

I had to trust my senses. I could not ask my nieghbour if they were green as he might lie to me or perhaps see a different colour through his eyes.

He could, but the fact that you could ask a million people and you would almost always uniformly identify the grass as being a very specific shade of green lends credibility to the objective fact of it being green.

There is no evidence that can show that the white light that shines on the grass makes it green in colour.

Light isn't actually white. In fact, it's technically invisible, but that's just nit-picking.

We cannot use numbers as argumentum ad populum fallacy, numbers saying it is green may still be wrong.

Argumentum ad populum only works when its about belief, not assessment of facts. If you get a thousand people to all walk into a room with a small patch of grass in it, then ask them to paint what they see (and give them a small canvas and a large selection of paints of various colour), the fact that the vast majority of people will all use the same colour and paint the same shape is evidence of the objective existence of the grass and validation of the notion that grass is a particular colour, objectively. You're not just asking for opinions. You're asking for observations and assessments and finding that those observations and assessments almost universally conform for a very, very, VERY specific conclusion.

Do you believe me when I say that there is green grass hills outside my house?

I'd be perfectly willing to believe you, yes.

Would you expect them to be blue or would you have to see them yourself to believe it?

I wouldn't expect them to be blue, but the only reason I wouldn't is BECAUSE I've seen grass for myself.

 

[Serenity7855]

No, these are just facts, not matters of creative endeavors, no different than cutting and pasting a phrase that says "the sky is blue."

So what, you plagiarised them


pla•gia•rism (ˈpleɪ dʒəˌrɪz əm, -dʒi əˌrɪz-)

n.
1. the unauthorized use of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own.
2. something used and represented in this manner.

7. Referencing, Quotations, Videos, and Links

To quote another author you should identify the Title, Author, and Publisher, when available. You may insert a short paragraph or one or two sentences from it into your post, showing a link to the source. Plagiarism is illegal and never permitted. When using material in this way, you must indicate the significance of the material in your own words. Posts that just show a link and source material will be removed. This rule will be enforced with in our understanding of intellectual property rights and fair use.In

fact, here it is from WIKI: "Wikipedia's text content, in a nutshell, can be used under the terms of the CC-BY-SA; unless otherwise indicated."

Yes it can, however, you have posted them as your own words without sourcing them in order to deceive posters on this forum. It is unethical and dishonest. You are an atheist.

Now had I quoted an entire article or an individual's piece of work, that would be a different story.

The quantity is irrelevant it is that act of plagiarism that is dishonest. You tried to make me feel that you are more knowledgeable then you actually are in your attempt to win a point

So you might step down from that high horse that you do not know how to ride ... you might hurt yourself, as you are now exposing yourself to libel and slander charges (not that I really care).

I am not on a high horse. I am here for honest and ethical debate. You are preventing me from recieving that by plagiarising. It is not libel and it is not slander. The facts are right here on public record and they unequivocally prove that you have broken the rules, as set out in rule 7 above. Now rather then evade your poor underhanded post why not suck it up and own it. You are embarrassing yourself.

So once again, good try at derailing an expose your lack of knowledge, I will go back and add an attribution so that you may answer the questions without feeling bad.

I am not derailing, I am merely holding you to account for your odious and crass method of debate. I do not feel bad, it is you that must feel bad and recognise what you have done, make restitution and forsake it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Miracles by their nature are generally unpredictable events and thus not subject to a controlled environment. The strongest cases of healing miracles happen spontaneously. I don't know that there are any healers that can line up blind people outside a laboratory door and bring them in and heal on demand.

So, why exactly do you call them "healers"? Surely, that title pertains to some characteristic of theirs that reflect positively on their capacity to heal with some reliability. If they are unpredictable, why do "healers" even exist? Shouldn't they just be "people who have occasionally been involved in acts of healing but had no power over the event"? If they're healers, get them in the labs and put their names to the test. If they cannot heal people without some level of reliability, maybe they shouldn't be called healers.

A healing miracle would not even prove God or any one god or some might even say demons or whatever.

I suppose that's true - but even demonstrating the existence of this kind of healing would be a huge step forward.

Spontaneous healing is, I believe, already recognized by science.

Source? I'm pretty certain spontaneous remission is a thing, but I'm also fairly certain that no scientific body would label these events miraculous or supernatural.

No, anecdotal evidence considered objectively from all points of view can also effect my view of the universe.

So do you accept anecdotal evidence which is contradictory? The personal accounts of people visiting hell vs. the personal accounts of people who experience reincarnation, or nothing at all? I understand your religious beliefs perhaps accommodate people with such different experiences, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of these people came away from their experiences with wildly different views from each other. When somebody experiences hell and comes away from it convinced of the absolute truth of the Christian Bible, while another may experience reincarnation and come away convinced of the truth of the teachings of Buddha, you must admit that these experiences and the conclusions drawn from them are so far apart that they cannot possibly both be true. Or, if they are both true as experiences, it only goes to demonstrate that people can draw whatever conclusion they wish to from their experience, which brought them as such no actual realization of truth.

No, I can't objectively validate anything to you. It is just the most reasonable understanding I can form by objectively considering all evidence and argumentation from all sides.

Then we are at an impasse, because I reached my conclusion from the exact same reasoning. It's the most reasonable conclusion I can form by objectively considering all evidence and argumentation from all sides. Now the question is, which one of our "most reasonable conclusions" is more likely to be true, and how can we determine that?

It is not faith at all for me. It is the most objectively reasonable beliefs I know. From my study and consideration the physical-only worldview does not satisfactorily explain the entire range of human experience.

See above. We have reached a point where we both believe our positions are reasonable given our research and evidence. Now the question becomes: how can we determine which of our very different conclusions is more likely to be correct? This is an extremely important question, because it is the most basic question to answer if you're ever going to hope to able to objectively conclude anything about reality.