A Debate Before My Comments Under Video Were Done

I was watching a video, my first comment here was on the ongoing commenting, and I got in a debate before watching it to end. BBL on rest of it./HGL

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:44 "But of course, there are things in the Earth called fossils."
...
1:52 "Even the ancient Greeks and Romans knew about fossils,"
"[and they explained them]"
1:56 "as the remains of the giants and monsters from their mythology."

• 1) Were they entirely wrong?
• 2) Would an evolutionist think they were wrong, and why?
• 3) Would a Christian think so, and why?

As a Christian, while I think some of the fossils were misidentified (elephantine fossils misconstrued as the remains of Cyclopes), I have no overall reason to believe Greek mythology overall didn't happen at all, and I have no overall reason to think men never walked earth in times recently before Classic times, with giant men and the behemoths known now as sauropods.

Nor would I be the least concerned with denying Hercules may have killed a few monsters.

May Ling

"Giant men" never existed. That is why not a single skeleton was ever found.

Sauropods never lived in time of humans; sauropods died out 145 million years ago.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@May Ling " That is why not a single skeleton was ever found."

Rarity is an option, plus one skeleton of the Uberibatitan Ribeiroi is so deficient it could theoretically be the skeleton of a pre-Flood giant.

"sauropods died out 145 million years ago."

That is not a valid date.

May Ling

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are extremely uninformed or willfully deceptive.YES; no giant human skeleton was ever found; NONE ever existed.There were more than 1000+ sauropod or dinosaur fossils unearthed. More are found every day. Not one was tested to be younger then 50 million years.

Uberibatitan Ribeiroi lived about 70 million years ago. No humans ever lived in the time of sauropods or dinosaurs. Humans (several species) only date back 7 million years.

All evidence disproves a global flood. Several human civilizations existed for the past 50,000 years with no flood in their history. A global flood is a creationist propaganda for children.

You say "it could be" ---- "could be" is no evidence. I was born in a garage, I could be car, but probably not.

Wendy Blue

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
You claim that sauropod extinction 145 million years ago is not a valid date? 145 million years is accurate. Sauropods are a clade of saurischian dinosaurs. (very long necks, long tails, small heads, and four thick, pillar-like legs) - they are not representative of dinosaurs; it is a special class of dinosaurs.

Sauropods have fallen into rapid decline at the end of the Jurassic period, around 145 million years ago—pushed to the evolutionary sidelines by new and improved herbivorous dinosaurs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@May Ling "YES; no giant human skeleton was ever found; NONE ever existed."

Heard of Wadlow?

"There were more than 1000+ sauropod or dinosaur fossils unearthed."

Possible, but some are in such a state that they theoretically could be bones of sth else, like extreme (ultra-Wadlow) giant. As one at least of the three skeleta of Uberibatitan Ribeiroi.

"Not one was tested to be younger then 50 million years."

Except of course when Creationists come into the play and carbon test. THEN not one was tested as old as 40 000 years.

"Uberibatitan Ribeiroi lived about 70 million years ago."

According to a wrong dating obtained by a wrong dating technique.

"No humans ever lived in the time of sauropods or dinosaurs. Humans (several species) only date back 7 million years."

7 million years is also a non-date, also obtained by very misleading dating techniques.

"All evidence disproves a global flood."

On the contrary, all evidence considered carefully by creationists and not just taken as preented by your evolutionist next door science teacher, supports the global flood. All evidence relevant to the case, that is.

"Several human civilizations existed for the past 50,000 years with no flood in their history."

No human civilisation has a written history going back 50 000 years.

Also, 40 000 years (carbon dated) to 35 000 years (carbon dated) seems a space after which you find no more Neanderthal body remains, dito Denisovans, dito Flores hobbits. Yes, I know about the Gibraltar cave, but it's Mousterian goods that is younger than that.

This makes 40 000 BP a good candidate for carbon date of Flood, meaning it should somehow match a real date of 2957 BC, meaning the C14 level was c. 1.4 percent modern carbon back then.

@Wendy Blue "You claim that sauropod extinction 145 million years ago is not a valid date?"

I claim dates older than 5199 BC or possibly 5500 BC, not much older, are not valid dates.

Wendy Blue

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
So you just grab the dates out of thin air? I did not realize that you can make up your own calendar? What is your evidence of a 7,000 - 8,000 year old earth, and what is the source of your information?

Why not list a single peer-reviewed science article that backs up your claim? Just a single one, then we can have a discussion.

Any claim made which is not supported by evidence is no different from a lie, and it is dismissed as such.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Wendy Blue "What is your evidence of a 7,000 - 8,000 year old earth, and what is the source of your information?"

The Bible, as per LXX version.

May Ling

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Robert Wadlow is just a tall human 8' 11" Not from a race of giants or anything to do with Nephilm as claimed in the bible. There were about a dozen more people who were close to that size.

"Except of course when Creationists come into the play and carbon test. THEN not one was tested as old as 40 000 years."

Produce one peer-reviewed article that describes the evidence of dinosaur fossil being carbon tested and showed the result it being less then 40,000 years old. Who wrote it? Who did the peer-review and where was it published?

If you cannot, then you are lying (BTW carbon testing is inaccurate for items over 50,000 years and is not used for older items). There are about 20 radiometric dating, which can measure up to billions of years.

Northern China had continuous civilization for the past 20,000 years. The last 7,000 years is recorded in documents preserved today. No global flood. Australia goes back 50,000 years of history with no global flood.

Again, present a single piece of evidence for a global flood?

"Also, 40 000 years (carbon dated) to 35 000 years (carbon dated) seems a space after which you find no more Neanderthal body remains, dito Denisovan"

Now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Did you not start with the following statement:

"I claim dates older than 5199 BC or possibly 5500 BC, not much older, are not valid dates."

Now you are claiming skeletons of 35,000 - 40,000 years? which is a lot older than what you claim as the only valid date range? Are you confused?

BTW in spite of your confusion, the facts are that we have remains of Neanderthal (fossils of Neanderthals) in Europe dated between 450,000 and 430,000 years ago.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@May Ling "Robert Wadlow is just a tall human 8' 11" Not from a race of giants"

Sufficiently tall to be considered a giant.

"Not from a race of giants or anything to do with Nephilm as claimed in the bible."

As far as we know, the nephelim were human.

"Produce one peer-reviewed article that describes the evidence of dinosaur fossil being carbon tested and showed the result it being less then 40,000 years old. Who wrote it? Who did the peer-review and where was it published?"

You know as well as I do that most peer reviewed journals boycott Armitage.

It so happens, CMI actually does peer review.

That means, this is in fact peer reviewed:

Radiocarbon in dino bones
by Carl Wieland | Published: 22 January 2013 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/c14-dinos

"If you cannot, then you are lying"

If I hadn't been able to, that would still not be a lie. It would just not fit your criteria of scientific credibility, which is sth else than truthfulness.

"(BTW carbon testing is inaccurate for items over 50,000 years and is not used for older items). There are about 20 radiometric dating, which can measure up to billions of years."

All methods except carbon dating lack even relative credibility. OK, thermoluminiscence, but it goes off a tangent a bit less far back than carbon does. Mungo man is carbon dated c. 20 000 BP, but thermoluminiscence dated (if I recall correctly) c. 40 000 BP.

"Northern China had continuous civilization for the past 20,000 years."

Carbon dated, I presume.

Now 18,000 BC [carbon dated!] is within the post-Flood lifespan of Noah on my recalibration of carbon dating.

"The last 7,000 years is recorded in documents preserved today."

More like last 4000 years. Perfectly compatible with Flood being before that.

Creation vs. Evolution : Recorded History of China Too Old For Us?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/10/record-history-of-china-too-old-for-us.html

"Australia goes back 50,000 years of history with no global flood."

Thermoluminiscence or sth, yes, but carbon says 20 000 years, meaning within Noah's post-Flood lifespan.

40,000 BP (carbon only) = Flood, 2957 BC.
9600 BC (carbon) = beginning of Babel, 2602 BC.

"Now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Did you not start with the following statement:"

That statement was about real dates. I consider the carbon dates inflated, but they come in a correct sequence.

Carbon dates have been coinciding with real dates for last 2500 perhaps 3000 perhaps nearly 3500 last years, but before that, with lower and rising carbon levels, the carbon dates are inflated, and more so, the further back you go.

"Now you are claiming skeletons of 35,000 - 40,000 years? which is a lot older than what you claim as the only valid date range? Are you confused?"

Not the least, I underlined that 35,000 and 40,000 years are carbon dates = NOT identic to real dates.

One of these carbon dates corresponds to 2957 BC as a real date. Namely, the year of the Flood.

"we have remains of Neanderthal (fossils of Neanderthals) in Europe dated between 450,000 and 430,000 years ago."

• 1) That is not the end of them.
• 2) Those dates are not carbon dates and they are in fact worthless, unlike carbon dates which at least give a relative sequence that is correct, if much inflated in dates.

No, Trolling and Hate Mongering are Not the Same

How Trolls Are A Danger To Society
David Wolf | 18.III.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5S1fLX4YpA

I

4:36 Someone recommended this video to me, if that person considers me as claiming conversion from Judaism, I'm not - for my person.

I owe my Christian heritage in high part to Conversos who did not convert under pressure. Or perhaps even more precisely, to Conversas. Closest in time, a stepgranny who died before I was born. Real mother of a once stepfather.

If I recall correctly, you are the Christian son of a convert to Christianity, but if not, sorry.

I certainly did convert to Catholicism, like Chesterton, from a basically "right wing near Catholic Protestant" stance.

I also have, like Chesterton, lots of other things to write about than my conversion story.

However, some guys who do not wish to give me a place as a writer (and publishing in the days of internet does not automatically mean getting paid as it used to), seem to try to push me or at least my reputation into categories like:

• convert from Judaism
• of suspect sincerity
• who should shut up and find a job other than writing.

I never claimed to convert from Judaism any more than you claimed to convert from Druzism (correct me if I am wrong on your family origins).

I do claim as much a right to write or otherwise express myself as you have, though.

And if you would like to compare me to Levine, well, who are the guys I'm supposed to have made hysterical claims about?

Putin? He's not a religious group. He's not in a position where he can fear getting lynched because a lot of his neighbour share my religion rather than his. He can not be compared at all to Irish immigrants in Philadelphia.

So, who are the guys - plural - I am supposed to be making hysterical claims about?

II

5:00 And where do you even get a statement like "never a Protestant, always a Jew" from?

"At a time when American Jews were few and often scattered, intermarriage was fairly common, comprising more than one in four marriages involving Jews. Still, the constitution of Charleston’s Beth Elohim stated that “any person or persons being married contrary to the Mosaical Law, or renouncing his or their religion, shall themselves and their issue, never be recog­nized members of this Congregation.” By marrying outside the faith, Levin likely distanced himself from the Jewish community."

Your link.

Two things to consider:

• Protestants aren't always the nicest to Catholics.
• Protestants very often are nice to Jews and would for instance not require a converting Jew to sever family ties with Jewish relatives.

So, where is the evidence he never was a Protestant?

III

14:08 "They didn't use that term"

Excellent point.

There is a difference like Heaven and Hell between arresting someone who has provoked a riot with death casualties by being incendiary about a group which is then targetted by violence and avoiding someone on the pretext of his being a "troll".

Being a troll describes an attitude, but it doesn't quite catch what self-imposed or situational limits on that attitude differentiate someone from a man like Lewis Levin.

Even supposing the description be well chosen about a specific person's attitude.

Btw, thanks for saying Zachary Schrag was a Jew, I wouldn't have noticed.

The Bible also is not quite calling the Jews trolls.

IV

16:10 Ah the Democrat militia man had defended a Catholic Church?

Those are the days in which Democrats had for "three R's" three words that really start in R:

• Rome,
• Rhum
  and
  
• Rebellion.

Back when Chesterton loved them.

If Bernie Sanders had been pro-life and pro-homeschooling, I'd have openly supported him.

V

25:43 As you reminded us of Breivik, may I remind you of a few facts about my stance on Utøya, which has been somewhat distortedly reported.

• 1) Breivik was a freemason, while not very active he was excluded from freemasonry (Johanneslosjen number whatever, perhaps 1) of the normal Norwegian freemasonry (nothing like Scottish rite or Grand Orient, but standard Grand lodge type freemasonry).(*)
• 2) News media and Norwegian police had reported him as "Fundamentalist Christian" when he's anything but, he is a "cultural Christian" about as much as Young Turks are Cultural Muslims or like the Atheist Persians in that restaurant in Lund I was neighbour to are "cultural Muslims". He believes Evolution theory should be compulsory in Norwegian schools, he's no believer in a personal God, at least those were his posiitions (and stated such) back then. Somehow, I got associated with Breivik for being a "Fundie" not in the sense of Anti-Catholic, but simply in the sense of Young Earth Creationist. I obviously responded by publishing links to the Masonic news about his exclusion on my blog. Some over here have taken this activity of defending myself and other Fundies from suspicion of being Breivik types as my supporting Breivik's cause.
• 3) I believe the Crusades were just wars. I don't believe all acts in them were just acts. But I believe both the actual way in which Afghanistan war worked out and what Breivik was doing (despite his claiming to be "Templar") are not Crusades and would not have been accepted as such by, for instance, Pope Innocent III. I have said so. Some have taken this as my being a pro-Crusader fanatic, therefore comparable to Breivik and so on.
• 4) I have one hero on Utøya. She swam away, not alone, but with a younger boy who, thanks to her is also alive. Too bad she is socialist, too bad she had those ideals, but I find what she did really admirable, and I think the prayers of St Olav were what chose her for the job of saving one : she's a daughter of Croatian immigrants.
• 5) Breivik senior, his father, is still in a Masonic lodge, he considered his son should commit suicide after doing such a thing. I consider that bad advice, bad sense of honour, and while I don't grudge the long prison sentence, I did lobby for his prison conditions getting better. I have been to prison myself. It can be hard. Yes, he deserved prison, no, no prisoner deserves everyone hoping he suffers as much as possible. Not he, not the guy in Spandau prison either.

As long as some media and some government officials, like those Norwegian police, confuse issues like "identitarian" of a religion and "fundamentalist" of a religion, political hatred of foreigners who aren't that religion (though Breivik did probably state he blamed Muslim immigrants less than he blamed the guys who helped their immigration, or perhaps even not at all, hence he was not targetting a Mosque - if not, it's my bad memory) with religious conviction for your religion being the right one, some stubborn confusion is going to sow hatred by the fact they are nearly acting like trolls, but they are not in a position to be called out as such.

What have some guys been saying over media for very long? Or, perhaps rather, had, back before 9/11?

• Christian fanatics were responsible for Crusades
• belief you could defend your religion = violence in the name of your religion
• Christian fanatics are denying Evolution, denying Climate Change, opposing abortion.

This is not what I say, this is what some were saying, not exact quotes, hence no quotation marks.

Then a guy looks around. He sees some Muslims are "responsible for terrorism in Israel" (Breivik was a Zionist, admired Hitler except for the Antisemitism, a bit like I had done before I discovered Franco, who actually defended the Church and actually held abortions banned). (Before I had, etc, = before I was 15 or so, or perhaps even younger). He sees some Muslims deny Evolution, deny Climate change, oppose abortion, refuse to use condoms, though the Norwegian state so "generously" sponsors these, what kind of conclusion do you think he will draw with values as outlined as PC?

I am a bit tired of, if anyone, comparing me to Breivik or now Tarrant, since, while I have used and will go on to use expressions like "grand déplacement" (Paris region has 20 % Muslims and it makes a difference, not just for the bad, but also not just for the good), I have recommended :

• limit immigration if you want to
• be good neighbour to those who are already here, don't grudge their religious separateness or the freedom they have to express it
• but above all, make a few more babies.

For a "grand déplacement" there are two parties, not just Muslims coming in, but first and foremost Westerners not properly reproducing ourselves so as to need immigration to preserve generations from too much of an imbalance.

If we start with just getting rid of Muslims, we are doomed, too few babies. More and more old will be homeless or ill taken care of.

If we start with getting rid of abortion, contraception, and a few more things like that, we might not need to get rid of Muslims all that badly (it might be too late, see that guy who rifled three guys in Amsterdam, perhaps in reprisal for Christchurch). We might start (if peace is still to be had for that long, it might have been back when I started saying this) getting some more respect from them, converting more of them, getting on better with those we don't convert.

Then again, some places some Muslims have powers over Christians they don't really need to get on with normal Muslim lives, so, overall and not just Muslims, Jews or Calvinists, a little less power to shrinks, to CPS and things like that. And require security guards to be kind to homeless.

(*) His exclusion was the day after his ill deed.

I forgot to link to the post here:

Telegraph : Norway shootings: July 28 as it happened
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8669706/Norway-shooting-July-28-as-it-happened.html

VI

26:57 I'm not sure if a lot of the socialists were descending from foreigners, I am very sure, the girl I like best of them (she who saved a boy of 11, who might not have made it swimming herself) was Croatian. Martinovic. Emma Martinovic.

Btw, one other survivor was Chechen (17 year old).

And considering some things Russians did, I can relate to why they went to Norway.

VII

28:56 I didn't know it was Alfred Rosenberg (whose Mythus des 20sten Jahrhunderts is on the Index librorum prohibitorum).

I'd have guessed Charles Maurras. While I appreciate some things he has to say on democracy and monarchy and on fiscal socialism, there are parts of government funded things that should be defunded, and liberties and money get back to citizens and tax payers, I have found another side to him since I came to France.

He hated the fact that the Mosque of Paris opened in 1926.

VIII

29:22 I have said it before.

If you want to defend the West, you can't do it for having a white race. You must do it for Christianity - or, failing that, some other actual value.

Sure, whites should stay around, but the "dangers of miscegenation" really aren't that much of a threat.

So, you fight for "whites" (as such), you might end up fighting for National Socialism or something not far off. You fight for Christianity, you will not be either invaded by blacks, nor be unkind to those who do come.

IX

30:53 As having some experience with Satanists, I am not sure someone of them would be too keen to do that.

They do have some ethic of kindness, among them, while also having an ethic of ruthlessness and of provocation to some outsiders, especially Christians.

Varg Vikernes, now an Odinist was back in certain times a Satanist, and he burned Churches when they were empty, but he killed a friend for being irritating. He seems to be a better guy now, but somewhat the type who would like to give me "a new education" like so many others have.

X

David Wolf on video:

23:51 "it's like that story I remember reading"

23:54 "about there was a radio broadcast"

23:58 "called ... War of the Worlds or sth"

24:00 "and some guy who went on the radio, this was back"

24:01 "in like the erly 1900's"

24:05 "I think, went on the radio when radio was a very new thing, you [know, most]"

24:06 "America were used"

24:08 "to radio and he gets on the radio"

24:10 "and he starts reading a sci-fi novel"

24:12 "about how aliens are taking over now"

24:16 "it was a sci-fi novel, but a bunch of people, they"

24:19 "didn't know that people"

24:20 "people were reading sci-fi, science"

24:23 "fiction from the radio, they thought the radio"

24:25 "[was] something you listen to to hear the news, to"

24:27 "inform yourself of what's happening in the country or"

24:29 "you know in your local area or whatever and there"

24:31 "are people who find [went] crazy, there"

24:33 "[are] people committing suicide because they thought"

24:34 "they were being invaded by aliens"

Joseph Grissom

You are referring to Orson Welles. He created a radio rendition of the short story, "War of the Worlds." Thousands of people who tuned in late to the broadcast and who missed the intro left their homes and fled for their lives down highways. It was reported that some men fired upon water towers with rifles because they mistook them for the Martian walker machines.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did anyone actually die?

Joseph Grissom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No. No one died.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Joseph Grissom Thank you, so David Wolf kind of misremembered the details?

Joseph Grissom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Not sure. Did he say someone died? I never remember reading that in any account of that very famous event.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Joseph Grissom Reading subtitles at 24:17 to 24:33 "but a bunch of people, they didn't know that people were reading sci-fi, science fiction from the radio, they thought the radio was something you listen to to hear the news, to inform yourself of what is happening in the country or, you know, in your local area or whatever, and there are people who crazy there are people committing suicide because they thought they were being invaded by aliens"

I didn't recall such a thing either, no.

On God's Being "Possible" (in our research, not in His Nature which is pure act)

Methodology on God : Matt Dillahunty is Bad · Others Commented under Matt's Video · More answering other comments · Methodology on God : Lynne Atwater is Worse · On God's Being "Possible" (in our research, not in His Nature which is pure act)

Dillahunty has a good moment here:

The Christian God: Improbable Or Impossible?
AtheistExperience | 12.VI.2009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDaZFj1KaLY

I

1:04 Tracie Harris gets it wrong.

All knowing, all powerful, endows created beings with free will.

What is it that appears as a contradiction?

"If God knows before it happens what x will do, it cannot happen that x doesn't do it, therefore x has no freewill"
In contradiction with "God did endow x with freewill"

However, the first part concluding x has no freewill is a fallacy.

If I see x do sth, it cannot happen that x is not doing it - obviously, this does not involve my knowledge depriving x of freedom.

Why would God's knowledge do so?

Well if God's knowledge were to God a "knowledge beforehand" it would, since you only know necessary outcomes "beforehand".

What is implied is, "if God knows x will do a thing beforehand, this actually means God knows it will happen by necessity, and as God is all powerful, He's the one who imposed the necessity".

Nonsense. God is "outside time" as theologians define God's eternity, this means, when God "now" (to us and everything is "now to God") knows x "will" (in our future, which is present to God) do something, this is God's knowledge of it as of a present fact, as if I were watching x doing it in the present.

Therefore His certainty of knowledge involves no future necessity type of "knowledge of the future". Therefore, this is perfectly compatible with God knowing it will happen by x' perfectly free own decision, precisely as I watching x could know that in the present, when it is happening.

And therefore it is compatible with God using His omnipotence in such a way as to give us real freedom. Real freewill.

But how does freewill square with God's overall control of events?

On the C. S. Lewis model, each is free, in the sense that God who by His nature controls all, by "some miracle" doesn't control the outcome of the choice, BUT He controls the coordination of human choices.

If a future event involves me chosing one book and x chosing the one beside it after I do so, God has eternally arranged that my choice of that book would come precisely as I was standing beside x in front of a bookshelf. And on that occasion I would be precisely a bit quicker than x, even if on other ones I am slow, and on that occasion x would exercise the choice (God knowing him would know he would sooner or later freely exercise) namely that he would be content to pick the book next to the one I picked on his side of the gap in the row of books. AND God would also have arranged all the free choices leading up to exactly what order the books stand in that shelf.

In other words, for those playing D&D, God has a type of discretionary power over choices freely made precisely as the Dungeon master would have over the choices of the players. Except of course, God exercises his Dungeon master role very much more completely as taking all "player" choices into account at once. Note also, it is a choice to attempt sth, not always a choice to succeed or fail in the attempt. We control our choices, God controls the overall outcome.

In St Thomas Aquinas view, a free choice is one not forced by another creature, and as God is first cause, His control over it doesn't detract from it's being free. I think Molina is somewhat closer to C. S. Lewis than to St Thomas Aquinas, like in the decision to give or not give initial grace by knowing the possible outcomes of either divine choice in what human choices it produces in that human acting freely.

II

2:52 Dillahunty is concerned with the false belief that our salvation depends only on confidently believing Christ took one's penalties on Himself.

This idea is actually condemned by Trent, saying that faith as this fiducial faith is not all the faith truths we are required to believe (in proportion to our access) and that faith cannot save without there being also hope and charity.

And charity tends to produce good deeds. A small child who is baptised ten seconds before dying will have faith, hope and charity as habits, not manifest in conscious deeds, but an adult living 24 hours with charity (and therefore also hope, therefore also faith) will necessarily do one small good deed at least - which gains a lot of extra value by flowing from charity.

Good deeds of unbelievers are also cues for God deciding to give them grace, as can be seen from St Eustace, who was given a revelation mentioning his alms had pleased God who had therefore decided he should be a Christian. He was also given to decide on the modalities of his and his family's martyrdom.

III

3:06 If the raped little girl in the example is not baptised and under seven, Hell is not an option, it is (much of tradition would conclude) limbo.

She gets to a place which is nice in an earthly way, but not paradisal, not centred on God who is source of all that is good and enjoyable, and she can have earthly pleasures and the joy of thanking God for them (which is another thing than having grace), so even if her damnation is a damnation, a loss of Heaven, it is still more pleasureable than many Atheists dare dream of.

Nevertheless, the rape and the murder are crimes and if the criminal makes a death bed conversion, well, he'll be saved, but there's Purgatory before Heaven. Usually he will not have hated his sin enough to avoid Purgatory, even if he hates it enough to avoid Hell. So, has he suffered any on earth and is he offering up any of that as penance (posthumously) for what he did? If not, perhaps the stay in Purgatory is longer.

Middle Ages - Warlike or Peaceful? Comparison with Modern War

Why medieval people loved WAR
Shadiversity | 7.IX.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut1-IgyfVU8

I

2:26 "when WW-I broke out everyone cheered, when WW-II broke out, everyone cried"

One guy who didn't cheer in 1914 : Pope St Pius X, who died of broken heart after not stopping WW-I.

II

3:04 "mortality rates were so much higher"

Everyone died, and for all except the present generation, this has always been so.

1900, with very few exceptions, everyone died. 1880, with no exception, everyone died. A mortality rate of 100% cannot be topped by Medieval mortality ...

3:10 Don't overdo the difference modern medical technology has done.

1) It's counterbalancing the pandemics of modern communications; 2) the lowering of child mortality (which really was higher) has more to do with advanced hygienic practises, but also with forbidding and stopping people from having children in situations where they cannot afford them; 3) and apart from child mortality, known Medievals seem to have lived perhaps a decade shorter than people today.

My material, gathered from wikis, involve more people the the medical study of 40 - 60 skeleta and assessment on the age when the died, which has been challenged by a dentist making a different assessment.

3:14 How available food was?

Seriously, while starvations happened in episodes, both man made in sieges and acts of God in bad crops, they never reached the murderous proportions of manmade starvations like Irish potato famine (the farmers had been growing wheat which the landlords didn't allow them to eat, bc the contract provided for them to eat potatoes and let landlords sell the wheat in England) or Holodomor (where Ukraine was similarily deprived of the wheat it grew by Soviet policies).

There is no indication that Medievals were permanently starving.

3:26 If you want to see someone worried about freezing to death, look at the next homeless guy - and remember how the Medievals looked at almsgiving, do thou likewise!

III

4:58 What you are really after is death was much more public in the Middle Ages.

You have a corpse at home one morning? You call the hospital, an hour later the doctor, after attesting death, gets the corpse to the morgue.

You had a corpse at home one morning then? You did the washing and everything else up to burial, arguably with neighbours and friends helping out.

Similarily with executions, now a man will die in an electric chair or gas chamber with a few officials looking on and then telling news media "yes, the execution happened" while, back then, a hanging or beheading was public, partly because it was in terrorem for other evildoers, and partly because some of the victims might like cheering. Did you notice when Saddam Hussein was hanged? Some tribes in Iraq were dancing and shouting and sending each other dates and toffee and "cors de gazelle" or whatnot.

But in this sense, the Middle Ages are still not over everywhere and weren't over to very recently on the West either.

They might not be over everywhere in the Ozarks. They are not over in Africa. What you refer to as "Middle Ages" is on this item a very much broader thing.

And what adult in our times has not experienced the death at least of some grandparent?

Obviously, often in hospital, so, less close at hand.

IV

6:24 Are you quite sure the soldiers on the other side were always people just like you?

I mean, in France, the soldiers of English occupant were arguably not married stable guys trying to raise their families, but adventurers who had come to loot your country. Oldcastle, on whom Falstaff is based, is one example.

St Joan of Arc was pretty clear, she didn't know if God loved the "godots" (God wot's!) over in England, she was just sure, He was, through her, chasing them off France.

Obviously they were not drafted normal people.

Look at some volunteers getting back from Iraq, now ISIS is beaten ... I was against ISIS while it lasted, but some of them are looking for any ex-ISIS not regretting (including a married woman, as you may have heard of), and any para-ISIS, any meta-ISIS and so on ... they have been to war for a decade, some of them, and they don't always retain perfectly normal reactions.

I am not saying they should be shut up in mental hospitals, I am just saying, look out a bit ...

One thing, very many wars in the Middle Ages (excluding Crusades) were fairly short things. Chesterton described them as a time when peace could always break out ... if the Christmas of 1914 had been Middle Ages, there might have been peace talks between Kaiser Willy and Clémenceau ongoing from dec 24 to jan 13 ... and they could have succeeded.

But Willy was not a perfect Medieval, neither was Clémenceau. While their religious outlooks differed, neither was a Catholic.

V

9:50 You might know that St Thomas Aquinas was born in a noble family which still lives on (Corazón Aquino on Philippines was the wife of some great grand nephew several generations later), so he was born to show one upmanship.

If he didn't quite like getting physical, he clearly did it in argument ... if you have any kind of interest in philosophy, don't miss out on this knight's son and knights' brother gone theologian and friar.

Summa Theologiae http://newadvent.com/summa/

Also helps to give insights on what the Middle Ages were like ....

VI

12:32 (2*616 if you like) on the "dehumanise and vilify" note, Vikings were (previous to becoming Christians) pretty good at dehumanising monks for "chanting galdr" and "being unmanly" ...

Hence, they were very mercilessly looting ... it seems one who had gone Catholic on Sicily temporarily forbade a Greek monastery to celebrate Greek liturgy, which led to reprisals by Michael Caerularius in Constantinople, which led to schism still ongoing.

What some missed is, the Greek monastery by intervention of bishops and so got back its right to celebrate Greek liturgy.

"about our past"

OK, noted, Russian Revolution, expropriations of German nobility in Slovenia etc are in the past. So is every expropriation which has already happened, and therefore all until the next one happens.

VII

13:43 Bad people are going to exist in the world all the way up to Harmageddon.

Christian Middle Ages were comparatively mild.

From 13th to 20th C, perhaps with "doldrum" in 15th or 16th, certainly with one in 19th, European wars have taken higher and higher percentages of European population, and 17th C was the record previous to 20th. Perhaps because Thirty Years War

In Roman to Frankish times, probably "defending your country" was less important than defending your faith.

Huns were un-Christian. Visigoths were Arian.

Once it was clear that Clovis was becoming Catholic, there was no big deal, a few arrangements of giving away land to his troops, when he became king. Oh, of course some learning "German or Dutch" as well, characterising his language very anachronistically, but it would have been called Theodisc or Thiudisc ... and your needs of learning it would depend on your ambitions.

People like them learning Latin with an accent was probably one reason why we have Provençal and French losing so many syllables of Latin.

If you say "ego habeo illum librum" as "egoaveoilolibro" you may land at "io ho il livro" a few centuries later. If you say it as "ego-HAV-eoillo-LIV-ro" you are better headed for "j'ai le livr'".

We are again living in times when the Catholic faith has enemies.

14:53 For instance, arguably, up to conversion of Clovis, a victory by him over Roman defenders headed by bishop St Remigius would have looked about as bad as Constantine IX loosing to the Turks, i e, as "Antichrist won".

Apocalypse 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.

You know, while the Western civilisation was concerned with this, it lasted as a Christian one.

Did Bl. Karl of Austria Use Poison Gas?
Tumblar House | 10.III.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejyOmKPq9zg

We are told that Woodrow Wilson allowed his navy to use poison gas, that he allowed them to torpedo civilian boats, that he opened the way for Hitler and Stalin by forcing Germans and Austrians to get rid of their monarchs.

And some virtues of Venerable Charles the First. (I am not sure if Pope Michael has made him blessed yet).

I

The kind of source who says Charles of Austria used poison gas (bc his ally Willy did), it might be the same kind of source that considers Austrofascists differed from National Socialists in name, but not in deeds ...

II

Woodrow Wilson ... do you know what he had more in common with the Kaiser?

The Kaiser sent Lenin on a train to Russia.

Wilson (probably) sent Trotski on a plane to Russia.

I once calculated some abbreviation of it (Woodrow Wilson) as either 666 or 616, but I seem to have forgot how, might want to try with Atbash cipher and Albam cipher ... before applying ASCII of course.

III

3:31 Isn't there a statue of Wilson next to his ally Trotski?

You know, the gentleman who allowed Makhnow to kill off some Czarist troups and then killed of Makhnow, the fine civilised type who recruited the proto-type of KGB (CheKa, back then, right?) from the Rayon, where lots of Jews who had felt bad about being second rate citizens if as much were eager to get "even" with Christians.

Methodology on God : Lynne Atwater is Worse

Methodology on God : Matt Dillahunty is Bad · Others Commented under Matt's Video · More answering other comments · Methodology on God : Lynne Atwater is Worse · On God's Being "Possible" (in our research, not in His Nature which is pure act)

A creating God is Impossible: A Final Proof
Lynne Atwater | 28.I.2008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQm-vMMDe-E

While the video is on Lynne Atwater's channel, the host is another, younger person, who refers to Lynne as another person than herself.

I

I am very sorry, but Lynne Atwater abuses her status as psychologist to promote her bad (that is sloppy) logic as a philosopher, as an Atheist.

• 1) Creatio ex nihilo does not mean there is no Creator to start with, it means He is not transforming Himself, and when He starts, there is also nothing except him.
• 2) God creating something from nothing entails no logical contradiction. Because God being there involves there being an active cause for the resulting creation, an efficient cause. The one thing that lacks is a passive cause, also known as a material cause.

Lynne Atwater

Hans-Goerg,
Don't be sorry, but do explain why and where my logic is sloppy. Don't just accuse, demonstrate. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater Did you read my follow up comment in which I did precisely show the faults in your logic, or did you only sight the first comment and respond to that one?

[Limit of my originally two and still so under youtube comments before the enumeration 1), 2)]

II

Also, the presentation is abusive at the point where "we have already agreed, if I described my house as completely empty and said I could fetch you anything you want from it, this would be contradictory".

When agreeing to that, I am assuming:

• 1) you are you, you are not God, therefore you do not have an ability to create from nothing, you also have no special standing with God allowing you miracles
• 2) by empty you mean "nothing" as to things that can be fetched and by "from it" you are not really saying "through it" (if you had sth behind the house that would be cheating).

Yes, on those terms, the house as you described it would be contradictory.

Lynne Atwater

Hans,
You are assuming that there is some sort of entity out there that you call God; an entity that can create from nothing. Please prove that that entity exists then explain how an "existing" being can create something from nothing when 'nothing' would not be an available point of creative departure. After all, there would already be something: i.e.; That entity's existence. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater You are using a very foul tactic, namely, confusing what is offered as a reply with what is offered as a proof and vice versa.

YOU were trying to disprove. YOU were making a claim, a very strong one in logic, of impossibility.

Whether or not God exists is not per se important for assessing the "proof" you offered. Supposing He does, and supposing He is the ground of existence and supposing He disposes of Himself in that capacity, He is adequate for creating after no previous material.

Hence, your disproof is flawed and deflecting from that fact by asking, out of order, while it was not my proposition "at hand" to prove God as if that were the one sole and even isolated task every Christian had to perform, is simply as bad logic as it is bad manners.

III

Indeed, basic truths are self evident, but impossibility of creation from nothing is not one of them.

Lynne Atwater

Hans,
The impossibility that something can emerge from nothing is, very definitely, a self-evident truth. Please review Aristotle's law of non-contradiction. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater You are confusing contradiction with causal logic, and you are confusing "with no cause at all" (which is in violation of principle of adequate ground) with "with no previous matter" (when there is however a previous agent).

I'm better at Aristotle than you are, since I spent some time actually studying philosophy, as opposed to psychology.

As previously mentioned, you are abusing your position.

If you want to read up, here you have St Thomas:

Summa Theologiae, I Pars, Q 45
http://newadvent.com/summa/1045.htm

Particularly interesting would be:

Article 1. Objection 3. Reply to Objection 3.

Article 2. Objection 1. Reply to Objection 1. & Objection 2. Reply to Objection 2.

Lynne Atwater

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Please explain what role cause can play where existence is not in evidence. I fear you are postulating a causal scenario in a non-causal setting. Remember, in order for existence to be created, it must do so from a position of non-existence and where there is nothing, cause is absent as well. I have a master's degree in Philosophy. I am not in the habit of posting proofs for no reason at all. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater "Please explain what role cause can play where existence is not in evidence."

Note, when we talk of can play, we are talking of possibilities. Not on whether God's previous existence is actually proven or not, but on whether, given it, He could cause.

Well, since He (on this hypothesis) exists, since He is unlimited (since unborrowed) existence, He is free to cause existence.

If you meant some existence on which to project His causality, I go with St Thomas, both in so far as I say that His causation is instantaneous, that is, the thing "emerging" into existence does not "emerge" gradually and therefore has no need of already existing before emerging into full existence (such a need would make the scenario contradictory), or if you meant that making always is transforming, always implies sth from which you make, which would be contradictory to making from nothing, I answer that is an observation which is empirically impeccable about making in our experience of human makers, but cannot be projected as a limitation onto God.

"Remember, in order for existence to be created, it must do so from a position of non-existence and where there is nothing, cause is absent as well."

We do not say "existence" is created, but "created existence" or "existence other than God" is created.

Therefore, the cause was NOT absent.

"I have a master's degree in Philosophy. I am not in the habit of posting proofs for no reason at all."

Too bad, postulating a contradiction where none exists is not what one should earn master's degrees in philosophy for.

Lynne Atwater

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Causality plays no role whatsoever where existence is not in evidence. It can't. Under such conditions, nothing exists, very much including causality.

You go on to discuss a being you call god and that apparently dose some most amazing things. Before we discuss the this god's marvels, please first prove the existence of God. No one likes to waste their time discussing something that is supposed to be real when, in reality, it is only imaginary. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater Again, you are misconstructing two things:

• 1) the concept of existence being there and the concept of it "being in evidence"
• 2) the actual Christian view of starting point as "nothing existed except God" and your misconstruction of purely verbal sound of "creation from nothing" as "nothing including no God" being the starting point.

If you got a masters in philosophy, it was at a university with clear atheistic and more or less Commie bias, or your professors overlooked an error as irrelevant for your masters essay.

"Before we discuss the this god's marvels, please first prove the existence of God."

That is a totally different kettle of fish.

We exist, we did not always exist. Ergo, our existence is contigent. But if all existence were contingent, some point all would exist and some point all would not exist.

But in eternity past, the point of all not existing would already have been reached and from there no return.

Your reply might be, the particles we consist of are unlike us not contingent but necessary. That was the position of Democritus and Epicure, with their poetic disciple Lucrece. However, if we take mind into account, their primary solution of specially fine particles being "mind particles" or their secondary solution of "mind particles" just being a very clearminded case of all particles having a mind of some kind is not satisfactory. Mind is a primary.

Also, supposing you are to try to misconstrue mind as a byproduct of matter, of particles, you do not have Epicure's eternal steady state universe to fit this into, unless you want to seriously ditch science.

Ergo, particles are ultimately contingent as we are, mind is the primary non-contingent existence, but not our mind, which is united in so many ways to contingent particles, therefore a pure mind, a pure spirit. Which we call God.

Lynne Atwater

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Please differentiate for me 'the being of existence and the concept of existence being in evidence.

Also kindly give me 'your' view of what make God, God.

You say "... in eternity past, the point of all not existing would already have been reached and from there no return." Once again you are pre-supposing some sort of causal event even in an obviously a-causal setting. Please explain.

Define 'mind'. (in detail) Apparently you feel that it has, somehow, non-physical properties.

Kindly clarify your ideas and the terminology you're using. If not, we could be talking to each forever about completely different things. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater "Please differentiate for me 'the being of existence and the concept of existence being in evidence."

There is a difference of sth being there and something being in evidence, right?

"Also kindly give me 'your' view of what make God, God."

Is this English? If you mean what quality makes Him God as opposed to sth else, being necessary existance would be one.

"You say "... in eternity past, the point of all not existing would already have been reached and from there no return." Once again you are pre-supposing some sort of causal event even in an obviously a-causal setting. Please explain."

Nothing non-causal about the setting. What can happen sooner or later will happen given an eternity of time.

In other words, if every being were contingent, none necessary, sooner or later the point where each was not would be there. Ergo there is a necessary being.

"Define 'mind'. (in detail) Apparently you feel that it has, somehow, non-physical properties."

Tell me when you latest caught a physical vector discussing things.

"Kindly clarify your ideas and the terminology you're using. If not, we could be talking to each forever about completely different things. Lynne"

I think I was clear enough for one who claims to has studied philosophy.

Lynne Atwater

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hans,

• 1) Saying "There is a difference of sth being there and something being in evidence" tells me nothing about the difference between these two declarations. Please give me your explanation in a proper form.
  
  
• 2) The postulate that God exists necessarily, requires proof that a) that indeed is what defines god and b) that there is such a god.
  
  
• 3) You continue to pre-suppose causality in an eternal universe. You don't see the contradiction in such a supposition?
  
  
• 4) Your comment ..."in other words, if every being were contingent, none necessary, sooner or later the point where each was not would be there. Ergo there is a necessary being." This apparent declaration of some sort is totally incomprehensible. Please re-phrase.
  
  
• 5) Vectors, equations, ideas, thoughts, and pies in the sky all refer to physical entities or events. Without physicality, there are no vectors.
  
  
• 6) The terminology you use is not philosophical in nature, it is the language of he who tries to camouflage their lack of understanding, not their knowledge. Please make an effort to first understand what it is you are trying to say, then make another to express yourself in a meaningful way. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater

• 1) "Saying "There is a difference of sth being there and something being in evidence" tells me nothing about the difference between these two declarations. Please give me your explanation in a proper form."
  
  I am sorry, I don't know the "philosophese" for this, if you mean terminology by Bertrand Russell.
  
  I am not interested in "philosophese" as in Bertrand Russell's own very special pursuit of hermetic terms.
  
  If you don't know the difference between existing and being evidenced, I am sorry for you. Presumably on your view bacteria didn't exist before the microscope?
  
  
• 2) "The postulate that God exists necessarily,"
  
  Is not a postulate, but a conclusion of one necessary existence, and a refutation of this being a material existence, a purely physical one.
  
  "requires proof that a) that indeed is what defines god and b) that there is such a god."
  
  I sense Betrand Russelesque or Kantian philosophese. Constructing circles in the conversation to pretend to detect circles in opponent's proof.
  
  
• 3) "You continue to pre-suppose causality in an eternal universe. You don't see the contradiction in such a supposition?"
  
  No.
  
  
  • a) I wasn't speaking of "eternal universe" but of eternal time;
  • b) I wasn't speaking of "caused universe" either.
  
  
  Presumably, you were sensing a contradictiçon between "eternal universe" and "caused universe" which wasn't there, because both terms come from your sloppy sense of what counts as equivalent.
  
  
• 4) "Your comment ..."in other words, if every being were contingent, none necessary, sooner or later the point where each was not would be there. Ergo there is a necessary being." This apparent declaration of some sort is totally incomprehensible. Please re-phrase."
  
  I am sorry, I am not your English teacher.
  
  
• 5) "Vectors, equations, ideas, thoughts, and pies in the sky all refer to physical entities or events. Without physicality, there are no vectors."
  
  The point is, vectors don't have ideas.
  
  Ideas don't evidence physicality.
  
  
• 6) "The terminology you use is not philosophical in nature,"
  
  You mean it is not Bertrand Russelesque philosophese? Touché.
  
  "it is the language of he who tries to camouflage their lack of understanding, not their knowledge."
  
  So far you have shown a lack of comprehension.
  
  "Please make an effort to first understand what it is you are trying to say, then make another to express yourself in a meaningful way. Lynne"
  
  Sorry, I am still not your English teacher, and I don't intend to get schooled in Bertrand Russelesque philosophese, which isn't English or any other natural language.

IV

5:20 It so happens, I did check up godgone.com and it is simply a rhetoric packing up of the idea that creation of nothing is impossible, it has no bearing whatsoever on where the universe came from.

Perhaps because her naiveté in logic did not allow her to pose the question, or perhaps because she thinks "eternal steady state universe" is an option (for several scientific reasons, it is not) or perhaps because she provided an answer back in 2008 but had to withdraw it between then and now (2019) because it was so flawed, it was hurting her rhetoric.

Oh, wait, it actually is stated what she thinks:

"How sure are we that this big bang was the first? From where did that initial source of energy materialize anyway, from nowhere? Is it even remotely possible that absolutely nothing could have exploded into all of this? How does something blow-up that isn’t there?"

"Man is accustomed to witnessing the birth of a child or the destruction of an inanimate object and surmising he has witnessed the emergence or annihilation of existence itself. He has not. He has only witnessed a fleeting moment of transformation. That which we interpret as the beginning or the end of physical form is, indeed, but the almost magical-like illusion created by snap-shot observations of an eternally evolving universe."

Nice show of explaining why Big Bang being first is a contradiction in terms.

But if she claims an eternally evolving universe being there before the Big Bang, she is basically breaking her own rule and asking us to believe there are rabbits on Pluto.

Let me break it down why Big Bang, even after previous shapes of an "eternally evolving universe" is a really bad idea scientifically.

• 1) In Big Bang or immediately previous to it, no atoms, this also means no hydrogen atoms or other elements;
• 2) After Big Bang, no known way of producing all the elements.

Abiogenesis doesn't work.

This means, life would either come from outside the universe (making God the creator as perfectly valid an option as erratic transfer between universes in a multiverse), or doesn't exist (which we know is false) or survived through the Big Bang, which defies the biological definitions of life.

So, which is it?

Atwood claims to be a clinical psychologist, meaning, her job is to straighten people out who are fools. Her job on this item shows her making a fool of herself.

V

Let's break down what she considers as "paraphrases".

"This box is void of any content. By adding absolutely nothing, it will have something in it. And..."

"Joe was never here, therefore he was."

"Yet the above are precise paraphrases of the self-contradictions:"

// 1) “Nothing can become something by adding nothing to it" or, 2) Before creation took place, “God didn’t exist, therefore, he did”. //

• 1) is not involved, since nothing didn't become something by adding nothing to it, but by God adding His word into the action of creating;
• 2) is also not involved, since "from nothing" doesn't mean from an initial state of absolute nothing, but "from no preexisting material". It definitely does not exclude the eternal pre-existence of a creator.

If she really wanted to know what theological terms mean, she should go to theologians, not to dictionary definitions which may be as sloppy as general culture.

Momentarily an article appeared and disappeared

I was editing text to be inserted into previous article, was very tired, clicked the wrong button.

Then I put the text where it belonged, clicked that button.

Then I saw there was a new article which had one view. I deleted it. I am not in the habit of deleting posts, if I say sth wrong on one, I tend to prefer updating, so that is why I explain it.

Some guys pretend I must be so utterly fatigued by my life as homeless, I can't be relied on to know what I am writing and so my writings should be ignored.

That is way beyond dishonest. Being so tired that yesterday I used a singular form instead of the correct plural form of a verb (which are pronounced the same) in French, or today I published text on a separate post which belonged to an already existing one are banal mistakes and do not show me as too tired to be responsible for what it is I am saying./HGL

More answering other comments

Methodology on God : Matt Dillahunty is Bad · Others Commented under Matt's Video · More answering other comments · Methodology on God : Lynne Atwater is Worse · On God's Being "Possible" (in our research, not in His Nature which is pure act)

Debates continued:

I

HeyLena

I actually think Matt was sort of rude...How is this a sign of patience?

Here you have someone who honestly doesn't understand what science is and why it's more reliable than faith, calling in (which they didn't have to do) and asking questions. This whole conversation could be a bit less tense. Of course the caller is confused, their entire WORLD VIEW is being turned over. This caller is no less confused than I am with physics assignments that seem illogical at first. Hell, I remember a time when I was crying because I didn't understand why a square root is different from multiplication by two and my mother and father had to sit patiently with me and just slowly explain again and again, giving me different explanations and drawing it down.

I imagine my homework would have gone a lot smoother if I hadn't been vehemently disputing the numbers and just listend, but really, there were a lot of risks tied to understanding it - at least for me. I felt if it wasn't how I understood it now, then nothing in math makes sense and I may as well give up. But you know what helped even less? People in school yelling that's how math works...

Thanks to my parents I am now an adult who knows how to do square roots and all old me needed was some calm explanations.

A C

HeyLena Matt has been doing this for at least a decade, he’s heard all these tired, weak arguments before. He’s human, he’s gonna get a little pissed off every now and again. These people are voluntarily ignorant, choosing to drink the koolaid of religion and denying everything science has managed to tell us about the world, life, etc in favor of a collection of documents written anonymously almost 2000 years ago to comfort, control and scare the illiterate masses of people living in the region we now call the Middle East.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I actually think Matt was sort of rude..."

If you want to study the details of not just rudeness but incoherence, check out my running written comment on it:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Methodology on God : Matt Dillahunty is Bad
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/03/methodology-on-god-matt-dillahunty-is.html

"This caller is no less confused than I am with physics assignments that seem illogical at first."

The problem is, Dillahunty's explanation definitely continues to seem illogical when you scrutinise it, as I did, stopping the video every minute or every two minutes and on one occasion going back to verify he had half a minute before contradicted what he was saying.

"I remember a time when I was crying because I didn't understand why a square root is different from multiplication by two"

If you want to understand why a scientist uses one or the other, you need to have faith in the history of experiments done.

While not sure what the nature of gravity is, I am sure of its behaviour, if there is no air pressure modifying an object sensitised to it (like a parachute), the acceleration is c. 1 m/s².

That is, after one second, object is 1 m down, after 2 seconds 4 meter down, after 3 seconds 9 m down and so on. BUT, I do not actually access sufficient experimentation to independently verify it, I have to have faith in scientists having done so (one classroom experiment I saw gave a hint, but even there just a good hint, not a complete proof of the behaviour).

Then, whatever model of gravity you believe in (Aristotelic, Newtonian or Einsteinian) you need this model to actually match the behaviour, but its doing so is not sufficient to prove that model of gravity.

This means, when one says "masses attract" one is enouncing Newtonian gravity, which is not proven by the behaviour shown for, for instance, ball shaped smooth objects.

Caller obviously was asking if Dillahunty could prove Newtonian gravity (even if he inaccurately termed it "gravity" since that is the name it most often has in classrooms), and he didn't, he even obfuscated the issue.

@A C "Matt has been doing this for at least a decade, he’s heard all these tired, weak arguments before. He’s human, he’s gonna get a little pissed off every now and again."

I have heard more than one Matt Dillahunty with callers, and I honestly don't recall one when he wasn't pissed off.

I do recall one video with Matt where he wasn't, where he was pleading for understanding about Christians and our view on witchcraft, and it's not that bad when we don't go after witches and so. But I don't recall him having a caller in that video.

Plus, if he has a sidekick, why was he (this video was uploaded 2017, but the footage is from 2013) not letting her take the calls when he was grumpy?

"These people are voluntarily ignorant,"

I'd consider Matt so. If he had had a decade, why didn't he look up Lourdes?

"choosing to drink the koolaid of religion"

Very loaded comparison.

"and denying everything science has managed to tell us about the world, life, etc"

OK? Caller denied stomach's need roughage as well as sugars? Caller denied levers?

Or caller opposed a certain worldview which doesn't actually follow from the experiments?

"in favor of a collection of documents"

Well, in order to have science, you need collections of documents too.

"written anonymously"

Not true.

"almost 2000 years ago"

True of NT, but most of OT is older.

"to comfort, control and scare"

Oh ... "comfort" and "scare" are compatible?

"the illiterate masses"

As if only those were believing them, as if the documents were not written by believers.

"of people living in the region we now call the Middle East."

NT was not limited to that area.

A C

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Written anonymously, yes they were. The Bible has written all over it the fact that it is a human-edited, socially constructed collection of books, put together by people over many, many centuries.

The Bible is a hodgepodge collection of oral history, poetry, legend, myth, genealogy, prophesy, and visions, some of which date back to nomadic tribes in the Middle East. The problem with oral histories is that they change over time, and there is no way to verify what the original version of any of the accounts in the work might have looked like.

The oral histories that were eventually included in the Bible were written down by different groups of people over centuries and copied by hand numerous times, introducing changes and inaccuracies in the process as with any text that is copied.

Numerous versions of chapters that have been included in the Bible by various groups (Jews, Gnostics, and Christians) exist, and arbitrary decisions have been made as to which ones to include in what is accepted as the modern Christian version of the Bible. Chapters that have at one time or another been included and then removed from the Bible are called the Apocrypha. Some of these, most notably what are believed to be Gnostic texts, differ radically from the currently accepted version of the Bible. Also, some sects (especially Catholic and Orthodox) include some books that others (especially most Protestant sects) leave out, or vice versa, so there is the additional complication that there is no single Bible as such, but several different ones to choose from.

Both the Old Testament and the New have numerous internal contradictions that render any attempt to deem words of the Bible literally true impossible. For example, there are two different accounts of creation in the Old Testament, two radically different versions of the Ten Commandments, and major contradictions among accounts of the life of Jesus in the New Testament.

Linguistic and textual analysis of the Bible has demonstrated that some chapters have elisions or additions made by different authors, making a determination of the 'original' or 'true' version of the Bible problematic.

There is ample evidence that some elisions and additions to some chapters were made for political reasons or to express a religious viewpoint that differed from that held by the original author of the chapter.

Historical sources show that the New Testament is factually inaccurate on matters including the reign of Herod, the Roman census, and many archaeological statements.

Most whales physically cannot swallow humans, having evolved to eat krill and plankton. Also, they aren't fish.

The earth moves. Really, it does.

Pi is not, in fact, three.

Comfort, control and scare. Three different uses of the Bible and religion.

“...as if they weren’t believers” your point being what? I can believe the moon is made of cheese, doesn’t make it true.

A total of 67 ‘miraculous’ healings have been recognised at Lourdes since 1858, when a 14-year-old peasant girl claimed that she had seen the Virgin Mary in a cave. However, there have only been four miracles since 1978, the most recent last year when an Italian woman was said to have been healed of acute rheumatism. Apr 1, 2006

161 years and 60+ “miracles” 😂

It is estimated that in recent years about 5 million pilgrims a year visit the shrine at Lourdes. Over the past 150 years, some 200 million people have made the pilgrimage. For those who care, that's a success rate of .0000335% or 1 out of every 3 million. Furthermore, since 1947 anyone claiming a miraculous cure has to go before a medical board. "From 1947 to 1990, only 1,000 cures were claimed and only 56 were recognized in that time, averaging 1.3 cures a year, against 57 a year before 1914."* Since 1978, there have been only four recognized cures.

Of all the cures alleged to have occurred at Lourdes, however, none have involved dramatic, unambiguous events like the growing back of a severed limb.

http://skepdic.com/lourdes.html

Vatican rules demand that the illness healed must have been incurable and that the healing is sudden, instantaneous, complete and without any subsequent relapse. A further demand lies at the root of the current problem. The miraculously healed person must not have had any medical treatment or taken any medicine that can be shown to have been effective.

'This means that it is impossible to recognise any cure of cancer,' said Perrier. 'It will be impossible to say in the end if the treatment had an effect or not.'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/apr/02/religion.france

The entity that later became the Catholic Church did not mention the Gospels by name or content until roughly 150 CE, when Justin Martyr mentions several unnamed writings on the life of Jesus, in his First Apology. The Gospels are not mentioned by name until 180 CE in Irenaeus of Lyons's book On Heresies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ A C "Written anonymously, yes they were."

Not really.

"The Bible has written all over it the fact that it is a human-edited, socially constructed collection of books, put together by people over many, many centuries."

Sure. Each book, with few exceptions having a known and named author.

"The Bible is a hodgepodge collection"

If you like, meaning you didn't bother to look up that collectors made history the backbone and prophecy the muscles, so to speak.

"of oral history, poetry, legend, myth, genealogy, prophesy, and visions,"

Your categories overlap.

Oral history = history
legend = history
myth = usually history
genealogy = history

Poetry = poetry

Prophecy = prophecy
visions = prophecy

So, you enumerated history, poetry and prophecy and so far forgot about law and wisdom.

"some of which date back to nomadic tribes in the Middle East."

Yes.

"The problem with oral histories is that they change over time, and there is no way to verify what the original version of any of the accounts in the work might have looked like."

Ouch, that was a heavy blooper.

"The oral histories that were eventually included in the Bible were written down by different groups of people over centuries and copied by hand numerous times, introducing changes and inaccuracies in the process as with any text that is copied."

The inaccuracies in copies are why Creationists like me are involved in discussions on whether the world is from 5200 BC, 4004 BC or 5500 BC. They are no big deal.

"Numerous versions of chapters that have been included in the Bible by various groups (Jews, Gnostics, and Christians) exist,"

Gnostics had no standing to include any writing into the proto-Jewish or Christian Bible.

As for Gnostic Bibles, I don't think any exists, even if we have individual Gnostic works.

"and arbitrary decisions have been made as to which ones to include in what is accepted as the modern Christian version of the Bible."

Excluding Gnostic writings from canon of the Christian New Testament is anything but arbitrary.

"Chapters that have at one time or another been included and then removed from the Bible are called the Apocrypha."

No, I don't call Daniel 3b or 13 or 14 apocryphal, I accept them as canonic.

"Some of these, most notably what are believed to be Gnostic texts,"

That is quite another order of "apocryphal" now you are speaking of Gospel of St Thomas, so called.

"differ radically from the currently accepted version of the Bible."

Yes, so? They belonged to another "church" or rather anti-Church.

"Also, some sects (especially Catholic and Orthodox) include some books that others (especially most Protestant sects) leave out, or vice versa, so there is the additional complication that there is no single Bible as such, but several different ones to choose from."

Meaning the Bible has 73 books or possibly more. So?

"Both the Old Testament and the New have numerous internal contradictions that render any attempt to deem words of the Bible literally true impossible."

There would be no problem to deem other words of the Bible literally true if ever there were two passages actually contradicting and where both could not be true.

"For example, there are two different accounts of creation in the Old Testament,"

Of which account B inserts cosily as an expanded view of a few verses in account A.

"two radically different versions of the Ten Commandments,"

Not sure they are so in the LXX.

"and major contradictions among accounts of the life of Jesus in the New Testament."

Don't think so.

"Linguistic and textual analysis of the Bible has demonstrated that some chapters have elisions or additions made by different authors, making a determination of the 'original' or 'true' version of the Bible problematic."

Higher criticism ... no, that's not demonstration. You can as well say "I read in tea leaves that John 8 had an addition about the adulteress" (Codex Sinaiticus has an elision in John 8 and other elisions arguing it was not made by real Catholics, and is therefore not a guide on what to include or not).

"There is ample evidence that some elisions and additions to some chapters were made for political reasons or to express a religious viewpoint that differed from that held by the original author of the chapter."

In Sinaiticus yes, but not between original hagiographers and Church after them.

"Historical sources show that the New Testament is factually inaccurate on matters including the reign of Herod, the Roman census, and many archaeological statements."

Would show if they were more reliable sources than NT - and if some of the contradictions aren't imaginary.

"Most whales physically cannot swallow humans, having evolved to eat krill and plankton."

Then that was not the case for the one offcoast Assyria.

"Also, they aren't fish."

Depends on terminology. Bible not being wriotten in Linnean terminology does term them fish.

"The earth moves. Really, it does."

You may have some problems proving that, if I'm allowed to criticise your method.

"Pi is not, in fact, three."

Nowhere says it is, the passage you think of (there is exactly one) has an object with some thickness, you have three concentric rings:

• inner diameter and circumference of cylindric object (not measured)
• outer diameter and circumference on most of the length (circumference measured here with a rope around object)
• outer diameter and circumference on rim at top (diameter measured here with a rope stretched above object).

King Solomon knew perfectly well pi wasn't three, but he loved the idea of making an allusion to three between the two measures.

"Comfort, control and scare. Three different uses of the Bible and religion."

Meaning, you can't prove it's one of them and especially not it was written for the purpose.

“...as if they weren’t believers” "your point being what? I can believe the moon is made of cheese, doesn’t make it true."

The point is, you were arguing like as if Bible books were written for believers but by manipulative crooks.

"A total of 67 ‘miraculous’ healings have been recognised at Lourdes since 1858, when a 14-year-old peasant girl claimed that she had seen the Virgin Mary in a cave. However, there have only been four miracles since 1978, the most recent last year when an Italian woman was said to have been healed of acute rheumatism. Apr 1, 2006"

Other sign Our Lady of Lourdes doesn't like "John Paul II" - when part of his relics were carred there, waters rose to stop arrival.

"161 years and 60+ “miracles”"

Yes.

"It is estimated that in recent years about 5 million pilgrims a year visit the shrine at Lourdes. Over the past 150 years, some 200 million people have made the pilgrimage. For those who care, that's a success rate of .0000335% or 1 out of every 3 million."

Not if most pilgrims are not seeking a cure.

You may go there because you want to honour the Blessed Virgin, or you might pray for a cure elsewhere, for someone else, which will not count in the Lourdes cures.

"Furthermore, since 1947 anyone claiming a miraculous cure has to go before a medical board. "From 1947 to 1990, only 1,000 cures were claimed and only 56 were recognized in that time, averaging 1.3 cures a year, against 57 a year before 1914."* Since 1978, there have been only four recognized cures."

Well, that would leave you with at least 56 miracles under good scrutiny.

"Of all the cures alleged to have occurred at Lourdes, however, none have involved dramatic, unambiguous events like the growing back of a severed limb."
http://skepdic.com/lourdes.html

Sudden cure of tuberculous peritonitis was nearlt unambiguous before there was an antibiotics cure, unless you argue they were cured by blue cheese?

"Vatican rules demand that the illness healed must have been incurable and that the healing is sudden, instantaneous, complete and without any subsequent relapse. A further demand lies at the root of the current problem. The miraculously healed person must not have had any medical treatment or taken any medicine that can be shown to have been effective."

In cases where no medical cure is known, that condition is usually fulfilled, outside psychiatry, doctors don't waste money on medicine that does no good?

"'This means that it is impossible to recognise any cure of cancer,' said Perrier. 'It will be impossible to say in the end if the treatment had an effect or not.'"

Indeed, cancer, tuberculous peritonitis, now there are therapies for both.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/apr/02/religion.france

"The entity that later became the Catholic Church did not mention the Gospels by name or content until roughly 150 CE, when Justin Martyr mentions several unnamed writings on the life of Jesus, in his First Apology. The Gospels are not mentioned by name until 180 CE in Irenaeus of Lyons's book On Heresies."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

That wiki needs updating, St Papias wrote well before St Irenaeus of Lyons.

HeyLena

​@A C I would agree, except he seems to be like this often... though it has admittedly gotten better. Regardless, if you have a Podcast for calling in I expect you to have better anger management skills.

I wouldn't agree with you on "These people are voluntarily ignorant[...]" .

I truly believe no one is ever aware of their own ignorance and it's hard to recognise, besides, all of us are guilty to some extent. Especially in societies that do not promote critical thinking which is basically all of them it can be hard to step out of it.

Due to the nature of ignorance we are often blinded in seeing the effect and consequences our ignorance has on the lives of others. And it is exactly seeing this effect that would probably help people change their ways. That's why so many people change their view on homosexuality or the definition of sin once they actually know someone who fits said description and realise the humanity they still posses. We are all trapped in an illusion of some kind, we all have our own realities. Science plays an important role in finding a common language or a neutral turf -yet it will always remain a compromise and merely an approximation to the "objective" truth.

I do not see religion as an inherent sign of ignorance, I also do not see an issue with belief or faith. Still, it cannot be denied that the structure as well as the culture within many if not most (or even all) religions, is designed in such a way as to promote reductionist world views and limited critical thinking. That being said, atheists aren't automatically freed from this either.

Also, I would just like to point out, that the Bible is really... F*cked up at times. Whether or not there exists a christian God, the Bibel remains immoral.

HeyLena

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Alright, I can see Dillahunty's explanation as being confusing and somewhat illogical. Though ultimately, his skill in coherent explanations or lack thereof do not invalidate physics. He does mix up some things too. If he defines gravity as a descriptive term, then he shouldn't have brought in the attraction of masses. He took a step that someone less acquainted with physics wouldn't be able to follow, a bit of a leap if you will.

"If you want to understand why a scientist uses one or the other, you need to have faith in the history of experiments done." I vehemently disagree on this one. vehemently. Sorry, just had to be said. The reason being that I can PROVE the difference between squared and multiplied. I myself can take building blocks or some other substitute and count them. What happens if I take four rows of two pieces and ad them --> 4 times 2 is 8.
which would be 4 times 4 being 16

Applying the root leads to different results as well; dividing the first batch in two is unequal to Root of 16.

"That is, after one second, object is 1 m down, after 2 seconds 4 meter down, after 3 seconds 9 m down and so on. BUT, I do not actually access sufficient experimentation to independently verify it, I have to have faith in scientists having done so (one classroom experiment I saw gave a hint, but even there just a good hint, not a complete proof of the behaviour)." I understood the first part, but was unsure where exactly you were going with this. Why would there not be sufficient evidence? That's what we use stroboscopes for? I would love to understand your take on this, perhaps you could rephrase it.

What I will say though, is that all evidence is evidence. The Bible is certainly evidence for God. I am not disputing that, what I am disputing is the quality of said evidence. For a non believer like me, I would not know which religion has gotten it right. Or are all of them? How could we find out the validity of the christian God, other then faith. Because for me, faith doesn't reveal anything. I can have faith in things, but obviously that doesn't make them "true". And people have faith in opposite things, so it's a dead end. As for science, it isn't really so much a belief as a certain methodology. The belief in science isn't so much an actual belief in a vage thing, but rather the principle of having a methodology. Regardless whether or not the authors in the Bible existed and witnessed what they claim, I would need some way of figuring out that what they say is "true". They know, but how can I? So in science there is an agreement. To show as clearly as possible how I got to any conclusion, I have to follow certain steps to ensure it is -at the very least, retraceable by others. If the steps were precise and make sense, if other people can come up with the same conclusion following the laid out steps, then it is more plausible. The more often people come up with the same results, the more grounds we have for that being an explanation.

Of course, science is flawed. I myself certainly see big issues and problems we as the scientific community need to overcome. For one, there is an ever growing flood of new information and not all of it can be verified, because we have too little repeated experimentation form other sources and honestly, bias will never be completely removed. To a certain degree our awareness is shaped through our culture and time and so we all are stuck within the reality of our present. With time the methodology is improving though, and just because the shoe may not fit perfectly a hundred percent of the time, it doesn't warrant getting rid of shoes altogether; instead we should look for a better fit.

A C

Hans-Georg Lundahl wow, you deny every claim, there’s a shocker.

Lourdes doesn’t have a great track record as far as miracles go. Personally, when God heals an amputee, a paraplegic, someone with a cleft palate, ALS, CF, or any other genetic disease without medical/surgical treatment of any kind beforehand I’d be more impressed.

Comfort, control and scare the illiterate masses of the day..

Believe something better is waiting after death, that’s comforting to a lot of people.

People believe in the Bible, it’s easier for the Church to control their behavior using the scare tactic of hell. Papal indulgences were another way to fleece, I mean comfort people (as long as they had the $$).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HeyLena I am responding to two of your comments, and in two comments, but the division between them just is about comment length.

[division not shown on blog here]

"I would agree, except he seems to be like this often..."

Most videos I saw.

"though it has admittedly gotten better. Regardless, if you have a Podcast for calling in I expect you to have better anger management skills."

I sense why he was a pastor while Evangelical.

"I truly believe no one is ever aware of their own ignorance"

As long as it lasts. One sometimes does become aware of it and change one's mind.

"and it's hard to recognise, besides, all of us are guilty to some extent. Especially in societies that do not promote critical thinking which is basically all of them it can be hard to step out of it."

Have any societies promoted critical thinking since Paris University in the 1200's?

"Due to the nature of ignorance we are often blinded in seeing the effect and consequences our ignorance has on the lives of others."

I'd second that about modern society.

"And it is exactly seeing this effect that would probably help people change their ways. That's why so many people change their view on homosexuality or the definition of sin once they actually know someone who fits said description and realise the humanity they still posses."

Look, I fully think sodomy is a mortal sin, I fully think it deserves (per se) death penalty (not meaning it has to be carried out in all societies), and I am a fairly ardent admirer of Oscar Wilde.

"We are all trapped in an illusion of some kind, we all have our own realities. Science plays an important role in finding a common language or a neutral turf"

I completely disagree. The world of modern science is less real, not more real than even individual illusions.

"-yet it will always remain a compromise and merely an approximation to the "objective" truth."

Compromise doesn't help anyone anywhere nearer objective truth. Approximations are known when some of the things they approximate are known. For instance, 3.14 and 3.1416 and 22/7 are all known as approximations, because pi is known as relation between circumference and diamater.

"I do not see religion as an inherent sign of ignorance, I also do not see an issue with belief or faith."

Thanks!

"Still, it cannot be denied that the structure as well as the culture within many if not most (or even all) religions, is designed in such a way as to promote reductionist world views and limited critical thinking."

Make Western Atheism one of the religions, and I agree. Only the true religion can truly admit free enquiry (as long as the enquiry stays within Orthodoxy, but even so, free, not like someone has to stand over one's shoulder at least internalised to get it right).

"That being said, atheists aren't automatically freed from this either."

Hat off, mylady! Not too many around here admitting that.

"Also, I would just like to point out, that the Bible is really... F*cked up at times. Whether or not there exists a christian God, the Bibel remains immoral."

Since you took up homosexuality, I suppose you would take death penalty for sodomy as an example. I take sodomy as an example of contraception, I think it's contraception that is immortal. Also apart from contraception as such, homo couples are less good at hiding their couple involves a contraceptive choice, so, they get more good at hiding they are in homo couples. Ergo, apart from contraception, homosexuality makes for a lot of discreet networking, which is also evil unless there is a good excuse for it, which homosexuality isn't.

"Alright, I can see Dillahunty's explanation as being confusing and somewhat illogical. Though ultimately, his skill in coherent explanations or lack thereof do not invalidate physics. He does mix up some things too."

The question is not validity of "physics". The question is, a normal believer in normal physics, does he need to have faith?

I'd say a thing like

"If he defines gravity as a descriptive term, then he shouldn't have brought in the attraction of masses."

Exactly, since that is a hangover from the days when attraction of masses in classic Newtonian fashion was a causal explanation.

"He took a step that someone less acquainted with physics wouldn't be able to follow, a bit of a leap if you will."

A leap of faith or of logic. Acquaintance with physics is not the point. Attraction of masses is what the masses (excuse pun!) consider as the definition of "gravity" a k a Newton's concept of gravity. It is a causal explanation, and it is not directly proven by observing falling objects.

[I had said:] "If you want to understand why a scientist uses one or the other, you need to have faith in the history of experiments done."

"I vehemently disagree on this one. vehemently. Sorry, just had to be said. The reason being that I can PROVE the difference between squared and multiplied. I myself can take building blocks or some other substitute and count them. What happens if I take four rows of two pieces and ad them --> 4 times 2 is 8."

Yes.

"VS. taking four rows of four or 4 squared --> which would be 4 times 4 being 16"

Yes. Now, to any given law of science only one of these applies, which means, in order to know which of them applies, I need to have faith in the history of experiments relating to that law of physics. Was I clearer now? Sure, there is a mathematical difference between squaring and doubling, and it can be proven mathematically without any experiments beyond what I can do myself with dots on a paper. What I cannot do myself, but need to have faith in the history of experiments is this : if an object falls for 1 second and it falls 1 meter, does it fall 2 and 4 and 8 meters in 2, 3, 4 seconds, or does it fall 4, 9, 16 meters in 2, 3, 4 seconds? You see, I don't dispose of material allowing me to see an object fall 16 meters while taking time 4 seconds. I need to have faith in those who do have that material at their disposal. Ergo, in order to know why squaring and not doubling is used in relation to time, I need to have faith in the history of experiments. I do remember a classroom experiment, and the paper strip I had tied to a weight seemed _mostly_ as if the distance increased exponentially in relation to time (there was a picker or whatever you call it which picked the strip once ever 1/100 of a second or 1/10 of a second), but there was a discrepancy, which of course could be explained by paper strip somewhat obstructing the fall. For a full faith in objects falling at normal height over earth at 1 m/s² I very much do need to have faith in the history of conducted experiments.

"Applying the root leads to different results as well; dividing the first batch in two is unequal to Root of 16."

Definitely yes.

"I understood the first part, but was unsure where exactly you were going with this. Why would there not be sufficient evidence?"

That's not the point. The point is, I don't have sufficient evidence in my personal experience, so, I need to have faith in the evidence gathered by others.

"That's what we use stroboscopes for?"

Aren't they about speed of light or sth?

"I would love to understand your take on this, perhaps you could rephrase it."

I hope I did so when saying, I cannot personally check that an object falls 16 meters in four seconds (excluding deep space or moon sized objects or objects that get air resistance before falling 4 seconds, like feathers). Since I cannot personally check it, I need to have faith in those who could.

"What I will say though, is that all evidence is evidence."

For something.

"The Bible is certainly evidence for God. I am not disputing that, what I am disputing is the quality of said evidence. For a non believer like me, I would not know which religion has gotten it right. Or are all of them? How could we find out the validity of the christian God, other then faith."

Mohammed's religion started with Jibreel appearing to Mohammed. Joseph Smith's involved Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith. A fair comparison would be, if the angel Gabriel appearing to Zachary and to Mary had not been announcing true miraculous pregnancies (one with a woman past climacterium, one with a virgin) occuring after these appearances. And if no miracle had happened before masses when the one son baptised the other Son.

Openly occurring miracles are kind a different league of evidence than a supernatural being appearing to exactly one man or woman and that man or woman only telling others what the message was.

"Because for me, faith doesn't reveal anything."

I agree. Faith is not about revealing, but about staying true to what was revealed.

"I can have faith in things, but obviously that doesn't make them "true". And people have faith in opposite things, so it's a dead end."

If faith were all to it, yes.

"As for science, it isn't really so much a belief as a certain methodology."

As long as we are limited to describing how objects fall, I agree. When we go past that to saying they fall bc attraction of masses and attraction of masses with inertia accounts as true explanation for all of the planetary movements in a Heliocentric universe that doesn't need any God to have day and night nor any angels to have seasons, that is going well beyond simple methodology.

"The belief in science isn't so much an actual belief in a vage thing, but rather the principle of having a methodology."

I have one. What seems to be, is, unless proven not so. Earth may seem flat, but is soundly proven rounded by Eratosthenes and Magellan. We have geometry adding up to Earth having a roundedness over a very flat country like Egypt, and we have geography over this roundedness allowing circumnavigations.

"Regardless whether or not the authors in the Bible existed and witnessed what they claim, I would need some way of figuring out that what they say is "true". They know, but how can I?"

• 1) If a book is traditionally ascribed to someone, it is by him, unless it is proven false;
• 2) if a fact is consistently reported over a certain group's tradition (note well, a fact within their observation range, not like Homer's claims of gods on Olympus, but like Homer's claims on Ulysses coming home after sacking Troy) it is true unless proven false, for instance by a contrary more trustworthy tradition;
• 3) if this leads to accepting miracles, they should be accepted.

"So in science there is an agreement."

I'd not say Tas Walker agrees with Donald Prothero on how to interpret Grand Canyon's layers, for one.

"To show as clearly as possible how I got to any conclusion, I have to follow certain steps to ensure it is -at the very least, retraceable by others."

I agree, that's why I gave the steps ... not autobiographical, but the ones I use when arguing.

"If the steps were precise and make sense, if other people can come up with the same conclusion following the laid out steps, then it is more plausible."

I think they can.

"The more often people come up with the same results, the more grounds we have for that being an explanation."

Not quite sure, since two explanations one of which is false, if for instance they contradict, would either systematically or in a limited range (the one observable) be likely to come up with same results.

On the ground, the description of objects falling can be explained at least by Aristotelic, Newtonian and Einsteinian causality models of gravitation. That the 1 m/s² thing can be deduced from one of these (Newtonian) doesn't prove it is the right one.

"Of course, science is flawed. I myself certainly see big issues and problems we as the scientific community need to overcome. For one, there is an ever growing flood of new information and not all of it can be verified, because we have too little repeated experimentation form other sources and honestly, bias will never be completely removed. To a certain degree our awareness is shaped through our culture and time and so we all are stuck within the reality of our present. With time the methodology is improving though, and just because the shoe may not fit perfectly a hundred percent of the time, it doesn't warrant getting rid of shoes altogether; instead we should look for a better fit."

Sure, that is why I think Creation Science is a better fit. And Geocentrism, Tychonian model including updates for elliptic orbits and a Thomasic view of angelic causality involved.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@A C
"Lourdes doesn’t have a great track record as far as miracles go."

You mean, if miracles were measured by likelihood of effecting a technical medical cure? If so, they wouldn't be miracles. A much better measure than how many recognised cures per pilgrims would be how many Lourdes miracles and indirectly Lourdes related miracles per unexplained cures.

"Personally, when God heals an amputee, a paraplegic, someone with a cleft palate, ALS, CF, or any other genetic disease without medical/surgical treatment of any kind beforehand I’d be more impressed."

Amputee? John 18:10 parallels Luke 22:50, now look at Luke 22:51.

"Comfort, control and scare the illiterate masses of the day.."

A g a i n : you are presuming on the authors being unbelievers wanting to manipulate. I think Matt Dillahunty fits the description better than hagiographers who gave their lives for Christianity (and by implication their story).

"Believe something better is waiting after death, that’s comforting to a lot of people."

Believe something worse or better is waiting and which it is can be scary for some people. And those most likely to be scared are not illiterate masses.

"People believe in the Bible, it’s easier for the Church to control their behavior using the scare tactic of hell."

Right, that is precisely how slavery was over a few centuries ended, since slave hunting was supposed to lead to Hell and freeing slaves could get you out of Purgatory (and keeping slaves who wanted to and were seen fit to become clergy or even monks could lead you to Hell).

"Papal indulgences were another way to fleece, I mean comfort people (as long as they had the $$)."

If you are out of all Christian denominations, why do you swallow the Protestant version of that story?

A C

Hans-Georg Lundahl way to miss the point of my entire reply.
“Illiterate masses” Yes, the audience the Bible was originally intended for was the illiterate masses of the time. Most couldn’t read, so the clergy, temple, etc had to comfort them with stories of God’s ‘love and compassion’ then attempt to control their behavior and scare the masses into believing they were ‘sinners’ who needed to be ‘saved’.

Christians are Protestant too genius.

Worldwide Christianity is divided into five major groups of Churches:
Roman Catholic.
Eastern Orthodox.
Oriental Orthodox.
Anglican.
Protestant.

Never said the authors were manipulating anyone, that was the job of the ones interpreting the Bible for the above illiterate masses.

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

Luke 22:51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
😂😂😂😂
So, that somehow proves amputees can be healed? 😂😂😂🤦‍♂️🙄😆

(IF your god can restore a man’s ear, why can’t He restore a limb?)

If your god is in the mood to heal you, faith healing is 100% effective. If you are unworthy, for whatever reason, then it is still effective because it is God's wish you don't get well. This is, empirically speaking, no different than the statement "faith healing doesn't work", but it forms a convenient excuse for proponents and practitioners.

Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible.

And yet, even with millions of people praying, nothing will happen.

No matter how many people pray. No matter how sincere those people are. No matter how much they believe. No matter how devout and deserving the recipient. Nothing will happen. The legs will not regenerate. Prayer does not restore the severed limbs of amputees. You can electronically search through all the medical journals ever written -- there is no documented case of an amputated limb being restored spontaneously. And we know that God ignores the prayers of amputees through our own observations of the world around us. If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day.

In a similar vein, many believers will say, "God always answers prayers, but sometimes his answer is 'no.' If your prayer does not fit with God's will, then God will say 'no' to you." This is odd because God's answer to every amputee is always "no" when it comes to regenerating lost limbs. Jesus says, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." He does not say, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it, unless you are praying about an amputated limb, in which case I will always reject your prayer." Jesus also says, "Nothing will be impossible to you," and regenerating a limb should therefore be possible. The fact that God refuses to answer every prayer to regenerate a lost limb seems strange, doesn't it?

In the same way, any medical miracle that God performs today is obvious. The removal of a cancerous tumor is obvious because it is measurable. One month the tumor is visible to everyone on the X-ray, and the next month it is not. If God eliminated the tumor, then it is openly obvious to everyone who sees the X-ray. There is nothing "hidden" about removing a tumor. So, why not regenerate a leg in an equally open way? If God (supposedly) intervenes with cancer patients to remove cancerous tumors in response to prayers, then why wouldn't God also intervene with amputees to regenerate lost limbs?

We know that God ignores all amputees, regardless of the cause of the missing limb. Why doesn't God heal thalidomide babies, who are by definition completely innocent? Or the innocent children who lose their limbs in mine fields? Why would God (supposedly) heal millions of other diseases, but completely ignore any disease that results in a lost or missing limb?

It's not like I am revealing some hidden truth here. The funny thing about amputees is that this evidence is obvious to everyone. We have all seen that God ignores the prayers of amputees. This evidence has been plainly visible for centuries.

Amputees are not the only ones either. For example:

If someone severs their spinal cord in an accident, that person is paralyzed for life. No amount of prayer is going to help. If someone is born with a congenital defect like a cleft palate, God will not repair it through prayer. Surgery is the only option. A genetic disease like Down Syndrome is the same way -- no amount of prayer is going to fix the problem.

What is the scientific evidence that supports the miracle cures at Lourdes?

As we learn more about disease, we are no longer able to justify It’s a miracle as an explanation for a claim about a patient.

Today, it is known that cancer can vanish and go into remission. Cancer remissions relating to Lourdes are no more remarkable than the remissions that have nothing to do with religion at all. "In the medical literature, spontaneous remissions - at least when cancer is involved - are extremely rare. Estimates range from one case in 60,000 to one in 100,000, although a definitive overview of the topic argues that perhaps one patient in 3,000 experiences a spontaneous remission. Moreover, the majority of oncologists believe that an unidentified biological mechanism is at work rather than a true miracle; and current hypotheses favour alterations in the body's cellular, immunological, hormonal, and genetic functioning over psychological mechanisms" page 4, Born to Believe, Andrew Newberg MD and Mark Robert Waldman, Free Press, New York, 2006.

How many of the people traveled to Lourdes and got worse?

How many of the people drank water from Lourdes and got worse?

How many of the people bathed in water from Lourdes and got worse?

We don’t know.

Belief in claims of miracle cures is falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Why would the miracles stop as technology and diagnosis improve?

According to the article, the miracles have slowed considerably, 60+ in 160 years... (Again as of 2006, there had only been 4 'miracle cures' since 1978 - an impressive 1 every 7 years! This coincides with better diagnostic technology and so more accurate assessments of the seriousness of medical conditions and the likelihood of spontaneous remission. Like other miracles, the supply of miracle cures at Lourdes appears to be drying up as science advances.)

This declining success rate, low though it was, so worried the Church that in 2006, Monsignor Jacques Perrier, Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes and the most senior cleric at the Catholic shrine, faced with competition from fundamentalist Christian Churches also offering 'miracle cures' in the form of faith-healing sessions, far more cheaply and accessible than his at Lourdes, decided to redefine a 'miracle cure'. It now includes practically any sign of improvement defined with such wooly terms as 'unexpected healings', 'confirmed healings' and 'exceptional healings'. Note, there is no reference to permanence or even duration of this 'healing' and it takes no account of other treatment the patient might be having. The goal-posts have been widened so far they seem to be almost outside the corner flags.

And of course, not a single instance of these 67 'miracle cures' has ever included such things as spontaneous regeneration of a limb or an organ, rejoining of a transected spinal cord, regeneration of destroyed brain tissues, repair of gross disfigurement or scarring, or indeed anything at all that could truly be regarded as without scientific explanation, although such cures should be well within the capability of a creator deity able to raise the dead.

The last claimed authenticated cure was that of self-diagnosed 'arthritis'.

If your miracles rely on a lack of technology and a lack of diagnostic skill, those miracles are not miracles.

A more reasonable explanation is the placebo effect.

So why won’t God heal an amputee? A more reasonable explanation is the placebo effect.
Evidentially, He’s just too busy helping celebrities and musicians win awards and athletes winning sporting events to actually regrow a person’s limb, even though said miracle could undoubtedly bring Christianity a few more converts, dont’cha think? A more reasonable explanation is the placebo effect.
A more reasonable explanation is the placebo effect.

HeyLena

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I sense why he was a pastor while Evangelical."
It seems we may just share a sense of humour. I couldn't help but chuckle as I had been thinking something quite similarly myself.

"Aren't they about speed of light or sth?"
They are used for a bunch of different things. Besides functioning as highly annoying club lights, they are also used for the photography of moving objects. Basically the light flashes only shortly, giving you the possibility to see how much something has traveled between the exposed frames. If you let something fall while using a camera and a strobe light, you can see Newtons law in real. I am sure there are tutorials on it somewhere. Could be a fun project.

"Look, I fully think sodomy is a mortal sin, I fully think it deserves (per se) death penalty (not meaning it has to be carried out in all societies), and I am a fairly ardent admirer of Oscar Wilde."
With sodomy I am assuming you mean homosexuality, not acts of sexual gratification. I will therefor continue this conversation built on that assumption. I obviously do not see it as anything sinful, but since you do we shall leave it at that for the time being. Rather than discuss the sin, I would like to hear how you justify the punishment. Death penalty seems to be an extrem response. You probably regard being gay as harmful in one way or another, but there exists a plethora of harmful behaviours humans can carry out that aren't ever faced with such severe repercussions. There are multiple things in christianity that are frowned upon, yet most are never forbidden or punished (by people, as God does judge his creations). So my question would be; what about homosexuality warrants such a reaction. Even if considered a sin, what makes this one worse than others?

"I hope I did so when saying, I cannot personally check that an object falls 16 meters in four seconds (excluding deep space or moon sized objects or objects that get air resistance before falling 4 seconds, like feathers). Since I cannot personally check it, I need to have faith in those who could."

Okay, I see what you mean. You are saying that we as a society and as individuals have to rely on the information given to us by science. You call this faith and therefor equate it to the faith of theistic religion.

You certainly are not entirely wrong. Any normal person who doesn't have access to "science" must trust the results or at least what they are told about the results.

Honestly, I see this as a problem. Poorer, less educated people and populations are put at a disadvantage and thus hear about science without understanding it or having the ability to check it's legitimacy. That is a main point of critique I have of the current system. Everyone should have to ability to "read" a study and the ability to recognise flaws as well as apply the method themselves. Otherwise it opens up the possibility and probability of manipulation. That being said, it still isn't faith as you may define it.

Whether or not you can personally observe it for yourself, doesn't make it non observable for humanity. In other words, if you wanted to, you could go and find out. And the problem would be solved if everyone had equal access to education. Everyone could go see. Though I have never been to Australia I know it has snakes. I was told this and I trust the information, but should I ever have doubts then I could go look. I have that option.

The same cannot be said for christianity. By now you must be familiar with people declaring they are unable to look for God and see him. That isn't necessarily a good point, as lots of things are "invisible" so to speak and your religion does emphasise this as being a core trait of God. But what I cannot disregard is the lack of evidence concerning his work/influence which ties into your second comment:

"Mohammed's religion started [...]
Openly occurring miracles are kind a different league of evidence than a supernatural being appearing to exactly one man or woman and that man or woman only telling others what the message was."

True. If there were such an occurrence and it was documented or recorded alongside many witnesses and if such things were to happen regularly and repeatedly then you would have a right to your claim. The problem is that this hasn't happened. We do have accounts of it in the Bible, but it isn't considered reliable because the only references are contained within the Bible, not from independent or second sources. Although it can be hard to see gravity or electro-magnetic waves as such, we can see the impact it has. I can see things fall down, without seeing the gravitational force behind it. I can see different colours, and when I put a lens up to my eye, the world becomes distorted. These effects can be measured and replicated on another day. Another good indication is that using the results of "science" works. If I were to take that trip to Australia I would most likely go by plane, one that was built by engineers using physics and maths. Internet? Science. Computer/laptop? Science. People trust science because they see its application and impact daily. Should they still be more critical, sure. But at the end of the day, science explains more than religion does. At least on this physical level. I am sure many people consider religion a guide on philosophical topics.

"I agree. Faith is not about revealing, but about staying true to what was revealed."
Yes, that's just the issue. Don't get me wrong, I do see a beauty in that. And if this were only about the existence of God(s) then I wouldn't bother you. However, I am opposed to faith in the Bible (when it is regarded as a literal work not figurative)

In other words, though I myself have no reason to believe in God, I have no reason to question yours. I do have reason to question your belief in the Bible, however. God COULD be out there somewhere, but the Bible isn't "true".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@HeyLena Forced to cut my answer in two again:

[Not shown here on blog]

"It seems we may just share a sense of humour. I couldn't help but chuckle as I had been thinking something quite similarly myself."

Evangelical congregations don't do the distinction between lay and clergy, lay and monastics. This means, an obedience a Catholic would expect from monastics, they expect from any parishioner in the pew.

That means certain things are expected to be swallowed by "obedience". In my case, it wasn't exactly angry pastors (I've seen more angry atheists as a child), but other things made me think Evangelicals overdo "obedience" and what is expected of normal believers to just swallow.

"They are used for a bunch of different things. Besides functioning as highly annoying club lights, they are also used for the photography of moving objects. Basically the light flashes only shortly, giving you the possibility to see how much something has traveled between the exposed frames. If you let something fall while using a camera and a strobe light, you can see Newtons law in real. I am sure there are tutorials on it somewhere. Could be a fun project."

So far, I'll have to trust those who have access to strobe lights, on that one.

"With sodomy I am assuming you mean homosexuality, not acts of sexual gratification."

With sodomy I mean precisely the acts, in which sexual gratification is got, not by normal coitus, not by the solitary vice which is also a horror, but where the sinner may have the excuse to be celibate and not by choice, though some laws did punish it by death too, but voluntarily chosen circumstances such as to exclude conception. While a man laying with a man as if with a woman was stoned, so were couples where a husband used the opportunity of menstruation to get gratification without ensuing pregnancy.

"I will therefor continue this conversation built on that assumption. ... So my question would be; what about homosexuality warrants such a reaction. Even if considered a sin, what makes this one worse than others?"

Demographics. If sodomy is allowed, you can't forbid the lesbian act, and if these are allowed you can't forbid "normal" couples to avoid pregnancy.

People in old peoples homes, in Sweden before I left and in France recently in the papers, are suffering because they didn't make sufficient children to be taken care of by their own.

"Okay, I see what you mean. You are saying that we as a society and as individuals have to rely on the information given to us by science."

No, in this case by scientists and in more general terms by one who is in a position to know (and who is sufficiently trusted to not lie about it).

"You call this faith and therefor equate it to the faith of theistic religion."

How about hearing me out before you analyse?

"You certainly are not entirely wrong. Any normal person who doesn't have access to "science" must trust the results or at least what they are told about the results."

Note well, on this side, the results in physical observed terms. We are _not_ obliged to believe all conclusions, since logic, like maths, is a thing we can check for ourselves.

"Honestly, I see this as a problem. Poorer, less educated people and populations are put at a disadvantage and thus hear about science without understanding it or having the ability to check it's legitimacy."

You are bringing up "science" all the time, as if that were an entity. I think I should hear you out what you mean by that, but I also think I owe you the question why you take "science" rather than each fact?

"That is a main point of critique I have of the current system. Everyone should have to ability to "read" a study and the ability to recognise flaws as well as apply the method themselves. Otherwise it opens up the possibility and probability of manipulation."

Sounds a bit like the Protestant view of the Bible. As it is, internet is opening up a venue of questioning of the studies.

"That being said, it still isn't faith as you may define it."

As said, how about hearing me out on my point instead of presuming I made a leap in logic?

"Whether or not you can personally observe it for yourself, doesn't make it non observable for humanity."

Precisely my point on the miracles Christianity is based on.

"In other words, if you wanted to, you could go and find out. And the problem would be solved if everyone had equal access to education. Everyone could go see."

Not the case with historic facts. You have no time machine to go to the battle of Austerlitz and check if Napoleon really won, and you also have no time machine to go back to 1st C Jerusalem, do a medical check to see if Jesus had truly died after the lance hit and a biometric check to see if the Jesus the disciples saw was the same biometrics. You'll have to take history on faith - based on which testimony is best credible.

"Though I have never been to Australia I know it has snakes. I was told this and I trust the information, but should I ever have doubts then I could go look. I have that option."

Would you severely doubt the snakes if for some reason you were cut off from Australia and knew you could never travel there? I would not.

"The same cannot be said for christianity. By now you must be familiar with people declaring they are unable to look for God and see him."

You may be familiar with at least one caller who hasn't seen gravity.

"That isn't necessarily a good point, as lots of things are "invisible" so to speak and your religion does emphasise this as being a core trait of God."

Thank you.

"But what I cannot disregard is the lack of evidence concerning his work/influence which ties into your second comment:"

"Mohammed's religion started [...] Openly occurring miracles are kind a different league of evidence than a supernatural being appearing to exactly one man or woman and that man or woman only telling others what the message was."

My point was precisely that Mohammed and Joseph Smith did not have sufficient evidence to conclude safely from it that it was God who was contacting them.

"True. If there were such an occurrence and it was documented or recorded alongside many witnesses"

Look, imagine a man were to say "hey, I'm writing a novel ... a man resurrecting in it would be cool" and next year he wanted people in the relevant region to believe it had happened the year before, would he be anything like able to pull it off? No.

"and if such things were to happen regularly and repeatedly then you would have a right to your claim."

A miracle happening regularly and repeatedly is called a natural fact. If you mean miracles (different ones, each going against the usual routine of nature), they do happen if not regularly, at least repeatedly.

"The problem is that this hasn't happened."

People regularly turning water to wine by using the right type of pottery? No. Miracles occurring to our times? Yes, they have.

"We do have accounts of it in the Bible, but it isn't considered reliable because the only references are contained within the Bible, not from independent or second sources."

Have you considered that the Bible didn't start off as a plea before a modern judge? Gospels were written to record what the faithful had witnessed (and their enemies had witnessed too) so it should not be forgotten. They were not preserved for centuries by a secret society who only produced them in public last monday and could have been lying about what the original content was, they were preserved as the historiography of the Catholic Church, from when Jesus had founded it.

Since these guys were being martyred by lots of others (who did document that part), why would they be volunteering for more martyrdom for somthing they knew to be a lie?

"Although it can be hard to see gravity or electro-magnetic waves as such, we can see the impact it has. I can see things fall down, without seeing the gravitational force behind it."

Supposing there is a gravitational force, as per Newton, rather than a geodesic in the fabric of space as per Einstein or a tendency on behalf of heavy matter to tend to the centre of the universe, as per Aristotle.

And in Geocentrism (remember, this is how the universe actually looks to us) I can see God turning the universe around Earth without seeing God Himself.

"I can see different colours, and when I put a lens up to my eye, the world becomes distorted. These effects can be measured and replicated on another day."

Yes, but you cannot repeat the battle of Austerlitz or the Peace Conference in Vienna another day.

"Another good indication is that using the results of "science" works. If I were to take that trip to Australia I would most likely go by plane, one that was built by engineers using physics and maths."

I did not hear the caller dispute aerodynamics.

"Internet? Science. Computer/laptop? Science."

I did not hear the caller ask whether Ohm's law (or Watt's law or the fact that pixels flow together to a coherent image, if small enough) could possibly be proven.

I heard him ask about "gravity" which in normal parlance refers to Newton's gravity. And which does not strictly follow logically either from things falling to the ground or even the peculiar pattern in which they fall.

"People trust science because they see its application and impact daily."

Which science depends on which application. I fail to see clear applications for Heliocentrism, Millions of Years, Proto-Indo-European actually existing as a single language and that millennia before Hittite.

If you collectivise science as to mean all scientists recognising each other as such, you are appealing to a kind of clergy recruited by cooptation, and forgetting some may sponge on the good reputation of the clergy as a whole. Catholic priests had a very good repuation of being safe to leave children with - and then some guys who shouldn't have been priests sponged on this.

"Should they still be more critical, sure. But at the end of the day, science explains more than religion does. At least on this physical level."

Religion explains why there are physicists.

"I am sure many people consider religion a guide on philosophical topics."

Like why there are physicists - or why there is day and night.

"Yes, that's just the issue. Don't get me wrong, I do see a beauty in that. And if this were only about the existence of God(s) then I wouldn't bother you."

If it were, it would not be about revelation.

"However, I am opposed to faith in the Bible (when it is regarded as a literal work not figurative)"

Well, in that case, you are against the revealed religion.

"In other words, though I myself have no reason to believe in God, I have no reason to question yours. I do have reason to question your belief in the Bible, however. God COULD be out there somewhere, but the Bible isn't "true"."

That's no substitute for the God of the Bible, the God of Israel, the God of the Catholic Church.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@A C Responding in more than one part.

[Not showing the division]

"Hans-Georg Lundahl way to miss the point of my entire reply. “Illiterate masses” Yes, the audience the Bible was originally intended for was the illiterate masses of the time. Most couldn’t read, so the clergy, temple, etc had to comfort them with stories of God’s ‘love and compassion’ then attempt to control their behavior and scare the masses into believing they were ‘sinners’ who needed to be ‘saved’."

You are projecting a society structure of Evangelical Congregationalist on the original audience of the Bible. That's not so.

"Christians are Protestant too genius."

If you meant "Protestants are Christians too" you'd have some kind of point.

"Worldwide Christianity is divided into five major groups of Churches:"

"Roman Catholic."
"Eastern Orthodox."
"Oriental Orthodox."
"Anglican".
"Protestant."

In fact it's more like:

Roman Catholic
Eastern Orthodox
Copts
Armenians
Assyrians

all of whom have some kind of claim, simply on their reading of past events of division, to be the original Church.

THEN there are also Protestants (Lutherans, Zwinglians, Bucerites, Anglicans, Calvinists, Arminians, Anabaptists, Baptists and so on) who haven't, except on the flimsiest pretense of a radical rereading of Church history, which most of them don't do anyway.

"Never said the authors were manipulating anyone, that was the job of the ones interpreting the Bible for the above illiterate masses."

Who told you hagiographers weren't clergy?

If a manipulative clergyman hired a barely literate man to write two epistles of Peter, could he also hire him to get crucified in Rome under Nero as a ghost martyr?

//😂😂😂😂 "So, that somehow proves amputees can be healed?" 😂😂😂🤦‍♂️🙄😆

"(IF your god can restore a man’s ear, why can’t He restore a limb?)"

"If your god is in the mood to heal you, faith healing is 100% effective. If you are unworthy, for whatever reason, then it is still effective because it is God's wish you don't get well. This is, empirically speaking, no different than the statement "faith healing doesn't work", but it forms a convenient excuse for proponents and practitioners."

It so happens working miracles is sth other than "practitioners of faith healing". If Peter or Paul whoever it was got handkerchiefs stolen all the time, because they could heal people by the touch, perhaps they had other things to do than act like US American practitioners of faith healing?

"Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible."

Why didn't you look up the exact terms, then?

"And yet, even with millions of people praying, nothing will happen."

Perhaps faith like a mustard seed is beyond most Christians?

"No matter how many people pray. No matter how sincere those people are. No matter how much they believe. No matter how devout and deserving the recipient. Nothing will happen. The legs will not regenerate. Prayer does not restore the severed limbs of amputees. You can electronically search through all the medical journals ever written -- there is no documented case of an amputated limb being restored spontaneously. And we know that God ignores the prayers of amputees through our own observations of the world around us. If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day."

So, your point is basically, if prayer is not a mechanism, it is an illusion? Requests don't exist in your world?

"In a similar vein, many believers will say, "God always answers prayers, but sometimes his answer is 'no.' If your prayer does not fit with God's will, then God will say 'no' to you." This is odd because God's answer to every amputee is always "no" when it comes to regenerating lost limbs. Jesus says, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." He does not say, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it, unless you are praying about an amputated limb, in which case I will always reject your prayer." Jesus also says, "Nothing will be impossible to you," and regenerating a limb should therefore be possible. The fact that God refuses to answer every prayer to regenerate a lost limb seems strange, doesn't it?"

A man born blind getting eye-sight back arguably has tissue regenerated. So has a man getting an instantaneous cure from Hansen's disease (the modern antibiotics cure takes six months).

"In the same way, any medical miracle that God performs today is obvious. The removal of a cancerous tumor is obvious because it is measurable. One month the tumor is visible to everyone on the X-ray, and the next month it is not. If God eliminated the tumor, then it is openly obvious to everyone who sees the X-ray. There is nothing "hidden" about removing a tumor. So, why not regenerate a leg in an equally open way? If God (supposedly) intervenes with cancer patients to remove cancerous tumors in response to prayers, then why wouldn't God also intervene with amputees to regenerate lost limbs?"

How many Catholics asked for it?

"We know that God ignores all amputees, regardless of the cause of the missing limb."

No, you presume med journals contain the whole history of human disease, healed or not healed. Simply not true.

"Why doesn't God heal thalidomide babies, who are by definition completely innocent? Or the innocent children who lose their limbs in mine fields? Why would God (supposedly) heal millions of other diseases, but completely ignore any disease that results in a lost or missing limb?"

You know, the point seems to be "if God is a doctor, where are his medical ethics". God isn't a doctor, He is not hired to relieve all human suffering there is, and not even of those personally innocent.

"It's not like I am revealing some hidden truth here. The funny thing about amputees is that this evidence is obvious to everyone. We have all seen that God ignores the prayers of amputees. This evidence has been plainly visible for centuries."

You said centuries? Would that include 17th C. Take a look at this:

Church Pop : When God Cured an Amputee: The Astonishing Miracle of Calanda
by ChurchPOP Editor - January 12, 2016
https://churchpop.com/2016/01/12/god-cured-amputee-the-astonishing-miracle-of-calanda/

"Amputees are not the only ones either. For example:"

"If someone severs their spinal cord in an accident, that person is paralyzed for life. No amount of prayer is going to help."

God might have a point against cars ... or be wanting to encourage repair surgery for spinal cords.

"If someone is born with a congenital defect like a cleft palate, God will not repair it through prayer.Surgery is the only option."

Surgery is certainly an option, and available. Often enough.

"A genetic disease like Down Syndrome is the same way -- no amount of prayer is going to fix the problem."

As a Downser can never go to Hell, and if baptised is guaranteed paradise, why worry?

"What is the scientific evidence that supports the miracle cures at Lourdes?"

The 56 case studies resulting in miracles being accepted.

"As we learn more about disease, we are no longer able to justify It’s a miracle as an explanation for a claim about a patient."

We? Are you a med practitioner?

"Today, it is known that cancer can vanish and go into remission. Cancer remissions relating to Lourdes are no more remarkable than the remissions that have nothing to do with religion at all. "In the medical literature, spontaneous remissions - at least when cancer is involved - are extremely rare. Estimates range from one case in 60,000 to one in 100,000, although a definitive overview of the topic argues that perhaps one patient in 3,000 experiences a spontaneous remission. Moreover, the majority of oncologists believe that an unidentified biological mechanism is at work rather than a true miracle; and current hypotheses favour alterations in the body's cellular, immunological, hormonal, and genetic functioning over psychological mechanisms" page 4, Born to Believe, Andrew Newberg MD and Mark Robert Waldman, Free Press, New York, 2006."

I don't feel any need to confide in doctors invoking unidentified factors, so, I favour God _doing_ a miracle. How is it even ascertained that there are any remissions having nothing to do "with religion" at all?

There are remissions of people who are not Christians, certainly. That rules out psychological mechanisms of faith healing in their cases. We were not speaking of whether these psychological mechanisms of faith healing exist, but whether God proves His existance by miracles.

If you tried to mediatise, over internet, case after case of spontaneous remission of atheists who didn't go to Lourdes, how many times would evidence show they had a friend who was praying for them?

"How many of the people traveled to Lourdes and got worse?"

Excellent point if Lourdes were being considered as a medical cure. But also if considered for miracle. If going to Lourdes were regularly good for you, like going to Vichy and drinking sulphuric water is good for your stomach, cures in Lourdes would be no miracles.

I even offered you a _possible_ natural explanation of early XXth C cures of tubercular peritonitis (a very typical diagnosis with cures in Lourdes), namely, since these days it goes away by antibiotics, it could be related to eating blue cheese in Lourdes. DO study whether the sick pilgrims were eating more blue cheese than they would at home!

"How many of the people drank water from Lourdes and got worse?"

Presumably not many from it, since France has had pretty bad public relations to the Church and has been favouring doctors plenty.

If there were a medical risk at Lourdes, probably it would be shut down.

"How many of the people bathed in water from Lourdes and got worse?"

Dito.

"We don’t know."

We do know, since the doctors there would not have allowed Lourdes to stay open if there had been any.

"Belief in claims of miracle cures is falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book."

Nice rhetoric.

"Why would the miracles stop as technology and diagnosis improve?"

Tubercular peritonitis and Hansen's disease usually can be cured by antibiotics these days. Why would a rich man stop giving alms if a poor man gets a livelihood?

"According to the article, the miracles have slowed considerably, 60+ in 160 years..."

Even so, they are 60 case studies.

"(Again as of 2006, there had only been 4 'miracle cures' since 1978 - an impressive 1 every 7 years! This coincides with better diagnostic technology and so more accurate assessments of the seriousness of medical conditions and the likelihood of spontaneous remission. Like other miracles, the supply of miracle cures at Lourdes appears to be drying up as science advances.)"

Why waste a miracle on someone who can get antibiotics?

"This declining success rate, low though it was, so worried the Church that in 2006, Monsignor Jacques Perrier, Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes and the most senior cleric at the Catholic shrine, faced with competition from fundamentalist Christian Churches also offering 'miracle cures' in the form of faith-healing sessions, far more cheaply and accessible than his at Lourdes, decided to redefine a 'miracle cure'. It now includes practically any sign of improvement defined with such wooly terms as 'unexpected healings', 'confirmed healings' and 'exceptional healings'. Note, there is no reference to permanence or even duration of this 'healing' and it takes no account of other treatment the patient might be having. The goal-posts have been widened so far they seem to be almost outside the corner flags."

Jacques Perrier reminds me of a man I heard of "je m'appelle Perrier mais j'en bois pas" - my name is Perrier (it's also the name of a mineral water), but I don't drink it.

I am obviously no fan of the Vatican II sect, and his moving goal posts is no good sign.

"And of course, not a single instance of these 67 'miracle cures' has ever included such things as spontaneous regeneration of a limb or an organ, rejoining of a transected spinal cord, regeneration of destroyed brain tissues, repair of gross disfigurement or scarring, or indeed anything at all that could truly be regarded as without scientific explanation, although such cures should be well within the capability of a creator deity able to raise the dead."

Check the link on Our Lady of Pilar.

"The last claimed authenticated cure was that of self-diagnosed 'arthritis'."

It is possible there have been no miracles in Lourdes at all since 1978, if God wanted to show his wrath at people like Jacques Perrier being in communion with Wojtyla. Or it is possible God did make miracles for some unaware of "John Paul II's" evils, or against them.

"If your miracles rely on a lack of technology and a lack of diagnostic skill, those miracles are not miracles."

Oh, you are discarding diagnostic skills on so recent doctors in one of the finest regions of medical science?

"A more reasonable explanation is the placebo effect."

67 minus the last 4 is 63. Get the case stories on any number from the 63, and tell me how placebo effect works out. It doesn't really sound convincing for tubercular peritonitis before antibiotics were around.

Especially, take a look at placebo effect for this story:

Church Pop : This Agnostic Scientist Converted After Witnessing a Miracle at Lourdes
by ChurchPOP Editor - December 25, 2015
https://churchpop.com/2015/12/25/agnostic-scientist-converted-miracle-lourdes/

"So why won’t God heal an amputee?"

Church Pop : When God Cured an Amputee: The Astonishing Miracle of Calanda
by ChurchPOP Editor - January 12, 2016
https://churchpop.com/2016/01/12/god-cured-amputee-the-astonishing-miracle-of-calanda/

"Evidentially, He’s just too busy helping celebrities and musicians win awards and athletes winning sporting events to actually regrow a person’s limb, even though said miracle could undoubtedly bring Christianity a few more converts, dont’cha think?"

Citing the miracle of Calanda:

"The story became such a sensation that the local archbishop conducted an extensive investigation of the miracle. When they dug up the box that he been buried with his amputated leg in the hospitals’ cemetery, it was apparently undisturbed – but empty. Regarding eye-witness testimony, there were obviously thousands of people who had clearly seen his stub leg before the miracle. So investigators asked two dozen of the most respected witnesses to testify in the court proceedings, including doctors who had treated him. No doubters of the miracle could be found.

"A year later, the archbishop finally issued a judgement: the miracle was authentic."

A C

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Medically, Pellicer's story is improbable, but not impossible. 55 days after the injury, he said, his leg was amputated due to advanced gangrene. In a crushing injury like the one he suffered, gangrene may take from 48 to 72 hours to set in, and once it does, you're gone from sepsis in as little as a few hours. Nobody lives 55 days with a gangrenous injury. If his skin was not broken, or if any breaks healed cleanly, it is still possible that the wound could have developed internal gas gangrene weeks, months, or even years later. But the appearance of gas gangrene is inconsistent with the condition allegedly reported by the doctors, which was "phlegmonous and gangrenous", meaning open and wet, and "black". Without an actual examination, we can't say for certain that Pellicer's story is impossible; but the version of the story that's been reported raises a huge medical red flag.

This red flag is sufficient to prompt a closer examination of the documented evidence. And there is one thing that jumps out. It's a giant, gaping hole. In case you haven't fallen into it yet, or seen any large buildings or 747s get swallowed up in this hole, I'll point it out: There is no documentation or witness accounts confirming his leg was ever gone.

The next 50 days he spent convalescing as his leg mended. Unable to work during this time, he was forced to earn a living as a beggar, and found that the broken leg did wonders for the collection of alms. Once his leg was sound, he reasoned that if a broken leg was good, a missing leg would be even better. He bound his right foreleg up behind his thigh, got ahold of a wooden leg, and traveled to Zaragoza, home of the great Basilica — someplace where he wasn't known. For two years, the young Pellicer enjoyed the relative financial success of panhandling among the Basilica's devotees as an amputee with a sad story.

Eventually he made it back home to Calanda, where his plans were accidentally foiled when the existence of his complete, sound leg was revealed when his parents saw his feet sticking out of his blanket. At that point, the miracle story was a perfect cover. Many, many people had known him as the man with one leg, and now everyone could quite plainly see that he had two. There was no way he could lose.

I'm not accusing Miguel Juan Pellicer of being a fraud, but I am pointing out that there is a far more probable alternate explanation. Faking blindness, infirmity, poverty, and all manner of ailments is hardly unheard of among beggars. It is now, and has been for millennia, a pillar of the profession.

Note that no evidence exists that his leg was ever amputated — or that he was even treated at all — at the hospital in Zaragoza other than his own word. He named three doctors there, but for some reason there is no record of their having been interviewed by either the delegation or the trial. The trial did find that no leg was buried where he said it was at the hospital, but this is exactly what we'd expect to find if it had never been amputated. Although this lack of a buried leg is often put forth as evidence that the story is true, it is actually a lack of evidence of anything.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4247

[Not sure how much of the response is taken from skeptoid and how much is his own, he gave no citation marks]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@A C "There is no documentation or witness accounts confirming his leg was ever gone."

False, if there wasn't, the bishop wouldn't have allowed the miracle to be pronounced.

@A C "He named three doctors there, but for some reason there is no record of their having been interviewed by either the delegation or the trial."

I'd need very good evidence of very good scrutiny of all the evidence to take this.

Even so, the bishop of Zaragoza could have considered it as routine once he had heard the doctors.

As to faked amputations among beggars, as I am a beggar myself, I am fairly disgusted at the clodophobia of one claiming a fake for someone who was begging for 50 days.

[Archbishop of Zaragoza, sorry.]

A C

Hans-Georg Lundahl So, the possibility doesn’t exist that the bishop merely lied, adding to the supposed veracity of the miracle, because an amputee regrowing a limb because Goddidit wouldn’t get butts in seats at church?

The possibility doesn’t exist that the miracle isn’t a miracle? Occam’s razor.
Best Explanation Is the Simplest. One of the fence posts is broken. Of possible explanations a) A moose ran through it or b) Some screws fell out of it because it is old, "b" is the likelier explanation.

A guy grows his leg back, bishop agrees God healed him. Explanations: a) amputee was healed b) it wasn’t true
I’m going with B.

Besides, in the modern era..why haven’t any other amputees been healed?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@A C Why limit things to "modern era"?

No, I don't think the archbishop lied is a likely or even remotely possible explanation.

Suppose someone had said Disraeli had slapped Queen Victoria on the back, no laws of nature would have been broken, but that's not the kind of behaviour Lord Disraeli would take to a Queen.

As to filling pews, the Church was in a position to investigate why someone was not showing up on Sundays although baptised, it was called the Spanish Inquisition.

As to income, the Spanish Church was endowed by tax money.

The kind of motive you present might have fitted a Pentecostal pastor in US in around 1900 (I think an amputated limb was reported in Asuza street, BUT the chronicler was someone who was raised into the Church well after the events and got the stories orally).

A Spanish bishop in 1600's had no need to be desperate. He was also well aware that forged miracles are a mortal sin to present with lying evidence. He also took one full year before his investigation was finished and he concluded in the affirmative.

AND I just sent a mail to an abbot in France who was presenting that case on his newsletter, in which apparently doctors were cited as witnesses to Pellicer's courage during amputation. Hence, I am awaiting their response on fuller details on that side of the evidence, and I am obviously much more likely to believe what he answers than a claim on "no evidence" from a sceptics' site.

I think you are in reality citing what could be called Hume's razor, as "the miracle is never the most simple explanation". In some cases it is, unless you start with strong atheism as a real claim about reality, and Occam would have agreed with that. Hume was also desperately ignorant on history, as were many 18th C. people of renown.

[H/T to Chesterton's Father Brown for comparison with Queen Victoria.]

A C

Hans-Georg Lundahl by modern era, something after 1640. Say, the 20th century? 21st?

So, because you believe in a God, the bishop or the amputee in the case could not have lied, that the Bishop is above reproach?

We also learned Jon Petersen, the long-serving president of World Ambassadors, Ltd., which proselytizes to international students on American college campuses, had embezzled nearly all of the organization’s funds between 2010 and 2014 (nearly half a million dollars) to “pay for a sex addiction.” We don’t know exactly what that means; Petersen, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, pleaded guilty on Monday to failing to disclose the “income” on his personal tax statement.

Just this week, for example, we learned of lay pastor David Reynolds, who in addition to “discern[ing] the will of Christ through study, mutual exhortation and prayer,” to quote his former(?) church’s website, allegedly had a habit of exchanging child pornography on the Internet—with irresistible social media screennames “sweetoothcandy3,” “Ethanluvsts,” and “Luvsomecandy.”

And then the news from Northern Ireland that a 35-year old priest was caught chatting up young (but legal) men on Grindr, dick pics and all. He is apparently being sent to the Vatican-run center in Venturini Convent, where priests with same-sex tendencies “are sent to reflect.”

Together with, you know, other gay priests. What could go wrong?

Perhaps the Irish priest will meet 44-year-old Antonello Tropea, who in December was also discovered on Grindr—but in his case, luring underage boys to have sex in the rectory of his church. Classy.

We obviously have become inured to these scandals. Perverted priests, philandering pastors—yesterday’s news. Covering this issue eight months ago, I listed 17 recent Christian sex scandals, and that was without doing any research outside of Google.

Nope, there’s no way a man of God could lie to cover anything up, including covering his own butt. No reason at all for them to lie.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-real-christian-preacher-sex-scandal-is-how-many-there-are
https://stories.avvo.com/nakedlaw/bizarre/6-outrageously-wealthy-preachers-under-federal-investigation.html
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/07/29/christian-author-tony-anthony-gets-caught-lying-about-his-life-story/

I’d believe a human being lying for their own needs rather than a ‘miracle’ that can’t be proven with 100% certainty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@A C First example, a Protestant in a charity actively seeking to get donations (and living on them).

Second example, a Protestant.

Third exemple, a Vatican II Catholic in Northern Ireland, meaning in Protestant territory, and in a very anti-Catholic one.

I don't think the comparison is very good.

I also don't think limiting miracles to amputees in 20th and 21st C makes much sense.

I think your choice of examples reflects a clear anti-Christian bias (as if that were the typical pastor) and your comparison, plus distrust of an example from 1640, they are both clearly showing you are out of your depth with Catholic history.

" I’d believe a human being lying for their own needs rather than a ‘miracle’ that can’t be proven with 100% certainty."

The Archbishop of Zaragoza had no such need to lie for.

If he had been gay, he would have been kicked out in seminary, as per the laws of Pope St Pius V (de horrendo scelere from 1568).

And if he had depended on donations, he'd have been doing missions in Protestant territory where that kind of faux pas would have meant death to Catholics. He lived in a Catholic country, he was a celibate priest with good ascetic habits (unlike some after mostly Vatican II) who was not likely to fall for that kind of thing.

You are again showing your extreme Humean bias, and your ignorance of Catholics and our culture.

If I hadn't already believed in God, and was still believing some of the Atheist things, but without the anti-God-bias, I think the archbishop of Zaragoza deciding with so much care on the case of Miguel Juan Pellicer would have convinced me, but I am happy I wasn't missing out on it before now.

However, you seem to even miss that when you speak on Jon Petersen, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Eddie Long, Randy and Paula White, you are trusting US American judges and journalists (from under Obama, the items are from 2016 for Jon and 2010 for others and at least Hinn and Copeland are still around with no penal pursuits right now), but the bishop of Zaragoza was the judge, and in Spain at that point, clerical judges (including Inquisitors) were the height of integrity as judges went, at least that was so much their reputation, some blasphemed in order to get a trial by an Inquisitor.

@A C "by modern era, something after 1640. Say, the 20th century? 21st?"

Check out how you use terms here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history

A C

Hans-Georg Lundahl I’m not showing any bias, and my examples were to show you that just because someone claiming to be a man of God can lie for multiple reasons. I’m not ignorant of Catholicism, I was raised Catholic. I’m not a historian however.

Why ask about the Modern era?

With increasingly good technology and knowledge, as well as a wider prevalence of skepticism and science in the modern world, supposed miracles are becoming easier to debunk, that is, discovering their naturalistic cause. For example, spontaneous remission from cancer is slowly becoming less mysterious; its mechanisms have been suggested and explored, and the statistical likelihood of it happening has been documented as around one in one hundred thousand, although this may be well underestimated and some studies seems to suggest remission rates are far, far higher in certain cancers and in particularly small tumours. As a result, someone claiming that their cancer was cured by prayer was likely cured by a spontaneous, but naturalistic, process.

By this standard, most miracles come up as quite boring, having easy explanations. Sudden recovery from a disease is a fairly common event (and it's practically a statistical certainty that it's going to happen some place at some time after they prayed for recovery) and supposedly talking to God can be explained by relatively common, and very naturalistic, psychological reasons. Similarly (assuming it happened as reported), Jesus' "Feeding of the Five Thousand" could be explained by people bringing their own food out of hiding (they obviously hid it from the disciples who apparently checked and found no food), contributing to the overall food supply — obviously the act of charity of the first few loaves and fishes was inspirational. Once it can be shown that supposed miracles can be explained using ridiculously simple, plausible and probable naturalistic methods, they cease to be miracles, because miracles need to defy any and all explanation.

It was easy to claim a miracle in the old days, but it has become very hard in the modern world.

The very best the Roman Catholic Church had to offer recently was the Mother Theresa Miracle of a women Besra being cured from her "tumor".

Did Mother Teresa really perform miracles? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/did-mother-teresa-really-perform-miracles/

As you can read a modern critical journalist investigating it, comes to the conclusion that it the church might be a bit to optimistic.

The job of the medical experts of the Vatican is to determine if the cure is explained by either: a misdiagnoses, treatment or the natural course of the disease.

The medical experts of the Vatican in Rome found a miracle. The local doctors just say: our medicine worked. One local doctor thinks he cannot explain it.

They did a lousy job because neither effective treatment nor natural course of the disease was ruled out beyond reasonable doubt

He who wants to see miracle can (and will) find it anywhere he likes.

But non of these miracles are proven beyond any reasonable doubt using modern standards we would use in courtroom with experts testifying.

On the other hand, proper old-school Biblical miracles like the parting of the Red Sea would defy any plausible naturalistic explanation; a sudden earthquake that caused a temporary land bridge, a brief wind strong enough to part the sea and so on. Now that is a proper miracle. Unfortunately, there really isn't reliable evidence that documents it ever having happened, so never mind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@A C "Hans-Georg Lundahl I’m not showing any bias,"

Your preference most certainly is showing that.

"and my examples were to show you that just because someone claiming to be a man of God can lie for multiple reasons."

Not my point. Ringing in the then archbishop of Zaragoza as "someone claiming to be a man of God" is very imprecise.

"I’m not ignorant of Catholicism, I was raised Catholic. I’m not a historian however."

I'm an amateur historian, and converted because I researched Catholicism.

"With increasingly good technology and knowledge, as well as a wider prevalence of skepticism and science in the modern world,"

The problem is, scepticism is not science.

"supposed miracles are becoming easier to debunk, that is, discovering their naturalistic cause."

Except when there is none. And one finds one anyway. The atheistic version of faking miracles.

"For example, spontaneous remission from cancer is slowly becoming less mysterious; its mechanisms have been suggested and explored,"

Sources would be appreciated.

"and the statistical likelihood of it happening has been documented as around one in one hundred thousand,"

And in how many of these cases is there:

• prayer the doctor is not paying attention to?
• raw red beetroot the doctor is also not paying attention to?

"although this may be well underestimated and some studies seems to suggest remission rates are far, far higher in certain cancers and in particularly small tumours. As a result, someone claiming that their cancer was cured by prayer was likely cured by a spontaneous, but naturalistic, process."

I'm open to a particular person being cured by red beetroots as I am open to some person being cured by blue cheese from tuberculous peritonitis. I don't think that will account for all.

"By this standard, most miracles come up as quite boring, having easy explanations. Sudden recovery from a disease is a fairly common event"

Again, your ringing in is very imprecise.

"(and it's practically a statistical certainty that it's going to happen some place at some time after they prayed for recovery)"

In that case, how do you know the naturalistic explanation which is often enough unexplained is the true one?

"and supposedly talking to God can be explained by relatively common, and very naturalistic, psychological reasons."

It so happens, prayers are usually not cited as miracles.

"Similarly (assuming it happened as reported), Jesus' "Feeding of the Five Thousand" could be explained by people bringing their own food out of hiding (they obviously hid it from the disciples who apparently checked and found no food), contributing to the overall food supply — obviously the act of charity of the first few loaves and fishes was inspirational."

Except we have no such account, that is pure reconstruction, flying in the face of the narrated facts.

Suppose that many or most brought their own food (that is required for a naturalistic explanation) how would you explain no one (there were women and children) being too impatient to wait and starting nibbling their own food?

"Once it can be shown that supposed miracles can be explained using ridiculously simple, plausible and probable naturalistic methods,"

Your naturalistic explanation for feeding of five thousand is not ridiculously simple given the account as it stands.

"they cease to be miracles, because miracles need to defy any and all explanation."

Not even true, they don't defy the explanation that God did it.

"It was easy to claim a miracle in the old days, but it has become very hard in the modern world."

Check Alexis Carrel once again:

Church Pop : This Agnostic Scientist Converted After Witnessing a Miracle at Lourdes
by ChurchPOP Editor - December 25, 2015
https://churchpop.com/2015/12/25/agnostic-scientist-converted-miracle-lourdes/

"The very best the Roman Catholic Church had to offer recently was the Mother Theresa Miracle of a women Besra being cured from her "tumor"."

As far as I can see, it could be a miracle. Since the woman was not previously Catholic, God could have used even a bad, but known person (I don't think Mother Teresa is a saint) to work a cure.

Read the article, and the husband's and doctors' claim she had received medication which could be effective doesn't quite explain why she was praying for a miracle, but can in India be very easily explained by Hindoo anti-Catholic bias, meaning that these people lied, to obfuscate a miracle.

"As you can read a modern critical journalist investigating it, comes to the conclusion that it the church might be a bit to optimistic."

As said, I am not overawed, more like underwhelmed of the journalist's sense of critical thought. ALL critical thought against the miracle, NONE of it against a hostile Hindoo environment.

"The job of the medical experts of the Vatican is to determine if the cure is explained by either: a misdiagnoses, treatment or the natural course of the disease."

Of the Vatican, not necessarily in the Vatican.

"The medical experts of the Vatican in Rome found a miracle."

The Vatican is in Rome, but were the medical experts so?

"The local doctors just say: our medicine worked. One local doctor thinks he cannot explain it."

And they could be lying out of Hindoo bias or out of fear of repeercussions.

"They did a lousy job because neither effective treatment nor natural course of the disease was ruled out beyond reasonable doubt"

Either they did a lousy job, or they did a good job, which was obfuscated. By lies.

"He who wants to see miracle can (and will) find it anywhere he likes."

And he who cannot tolerate a miracle, will not find those best attested attested well enough.

"But non of these miracles are proven beyond any reasonable doubt using modern standards we would use in courtroom with experts testifying."

A very wide allegation from a very narrow example.

"On the other hand, proper old-school Biblical miracles like the parting of the Red Sea would defy any plausible naturalistic explanation; a sudden earthquake that caused a temporary land bridge, a brief wind strong enough to part the sea and so on. Now that is a proper miracle. Unfortunately, there really isn't reliable evidence that documents it ever having happened, so never mind."

There is. Israelites would not have accepted it as their history otherwise. There are no known examples of history mistaking miracles that never happened. At all. There are examples of naturalistic things being mistaken for miracles or of miracles being misattributed.

II

There's No God

I know we shouldn't hate people, but FUCK, I HATE GOD IDIOTS!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Is that why you love Matt, because he caters to your hatred?

There's No God

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Matt is a Human. He's not a GOD IDIOT. God Idiots are primitive barbaric savages.

Anthony Davis

There's No God Yeah, they would love to go back and live in caves.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@There's No God "God Idiots are primitive barbaric savages."

Barbaric, primitive and also savages all refer to human people.

Not always humane, but human.

Civilised advanced city dwellers are also not always humane, but human.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Anthony Davis "they would love to go back and live in caves."

Some live in caves this very day and find it very attractive.

Have you seen the cave cities in Jordan and Cappadocia?

There's No God

They are like Flat Earthers. They are inferior to modern Humans.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@There's No God Flat Earthers are wrong, but not as wrong as Atheists, they are not inferior to "modern humans"

There's No God

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Got any photos of your godfairy? What colour is she? Does she talk to you?

Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy? They are the same thing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@There's No God You remind of of when Rob Skiba asks for photos of a round earth and dismisses the ones from space as fakes by NASA.

God made a kind of photo of himself at His Resurrection from the dead, the Shroud of Turin.

Look it up.

There's No God

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Don't be utterly ridiculous.

You do realise that your mental illness can be treated, right? I know you live in a backward country, but surely they have mental health practitioners?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@There's No God Oh, you are confessing to believing in Communist psychiatry?

They actually did "treat" Christians in the Soviet Union.

Candid of you. No thanks.

They actually have a bit too many mental health practitioners in France, which might not quite appreciate being considered a backward country. They also have (since Sarkozy) a law against sectarian harassment.

I'd consider it sectarian harassment to hand me over to such guys, just so I make myself clear.

French term : harcèlement sectaire.

There's No God

@Hans-Georg Lundahl France is a beautiful country. It's a shame they allow stone age religious extremists like you to live there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@There's No God You are once again showing the extremism of your atheism or antitheism.

There's No God

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Extremism"? You savages are hilarious!

All people are born not believing in godfairies. We normal people stay that way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@There's No God What newborn people believe is moot, they are usually not too articulate.

I don't think you stayed aphatic or illiterate as a newborn, ergo, I don't think you stayed as newborn.

All people are however born to be, in normal family circumstances, credulous of family, and I dealt with an agnostic to atheist dominance in my family before mother got a chance to raise me as a Christian.

No, I was most definitely before then an Atheist the way you are. I accepted Atheist doctrines like Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Evolution and Heliocentrism, but I was not at age 6 or 8 on the outlook to debunk claims one way or the other.

Normality doesn't start with incredulity, but with credulity.

III

pepperVenge

That's an excellent point; Atheist don't say that god doesn't exist, they reject the assertion by theist's that he exists. That dude with the go-tee is really smart.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Atheist don't say that god doesn't exist, they reject the assertion by theist's that he exists."

The two propositions:

"God exists" and "God does not exist" (whichever level of specification you want to give to God, only same in each proposition)

these two propositions are not what logic terms "contrary", as in "yellow" vs "blue" (of same one coloured object), so that both could be false, while not both could be true, they are what it terms "contradictory" so that one being true means other being false AND one being false means other being true.

In usual parlance, rejecting a claim that x is so means implying that x is not so. It does not mean saying "x could be true, but your word is not sufficient".

Therefore, rejecting the assertion by us that God exists is equal to asserting God does not exist.

pepperVenge

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So basically what you're saying is that you can't disprove god exists, but you also can't prove he exists. You have to either choose to believe he exists (faith), or go with the lack of evidence that suggests he does not exist (logic).

Its like the cartoon trying to prove the existence of the cartoonist who drew him, but he can only used the cartoon itself.. That doesn't work.

In the case of god, if he does exist, he is transcendent. Non transcendent beings cannot prove god does or does not exist by using nothing but the non-transcendent universe which is all that's available. There is no choice then but to either except that god exists on a leap of faith, or come to the logical conclusion that god doesn't exist because available evidence supports that claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@pepperVenge "So basically what you're saying is that you can't disprove god exists, but you also can't prove he exists."

No, I was not saying that.

Learn to read.

I was saying that, in contradictory controverse with no default answer (we are not in a criminal court procedure) both sides are required to provide evidence.

Not one to brush off all evidence given by other side and ask for metaevidence in absurdum because "burden of proof" is on the other side.

@pepperVenge "In the case of god, if he does exist, he is transcendent. Non transcendent beings cannot prove god does or does not exist by using nothing but the non-transcendent universe which is all that's available."

• 1) Fault in logic.
  
  The non-transcendent can behave in such a way as to prove the transcendent.
  
  
• 2) Fault in fact.
  
  Our cosmos actually does contain what Kant would have called transcendent. Our minds.
  
  
• 3) Fault in culture.
  
  Depending on Kant on what can and can't be proven.

pepperVenge

@Hans-Georg Lundahl That's fallacious; how can a "non-transcendent" "behave in such a way as to prove the transcendent." ?? Just saying it doesn't make it so, you need to provide your evidence for this.

What evidence supports the "fact" that our minds are in fact transcendent, because I can point to science that clearly suggests it is not; the mind as we know it is nothing more then the culminations of nerve cells that have formed in our brain. They connect to other nerve cells and form a chain link called a synapse. All our memories and ideas are nothing more then synapses of which our brains can develop as much as 100 trillion.

Perhaps I haven't met your idea of logic, but you still have, like most theists, not met the burden of proof.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You are mistaken. Atheists to not claim that God does not exists, They make no claim at all. They reject the claim by theists that god exists, thus the burden of proof is solely on the shoulders of theists who are the only one's who have made any claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@pepperVenge "That's fallacious; how can a "non-transcendent" "behave in such a way as to prove the transcendent." ?? Just saying it doesn't make it so, you need to provide your evidence for this."

I'll give a simple example.

• 1) Mind is by Kant considered transcendent. Remember, he's the guy who made the point that the non-transcendent cannot prove the transcendent.
• 2) Vocal chords, printer's ink letter shapes, letter shapes in pixels and so on do often enough behave in such a way as to reveal a mind composed them.

"What evidence supports the "fact" that our minds are in fact transcendent, because I can point to science that clearly suggests it is not; the mind as we know it is nothing more then the culminations of nerve cells that have formed in our brain."

No, that is not science. That is a naturalistic and materialistic ideology popular among a lot of scientists, but it still is not science.

"They connect to other nerve cells and form a chain link called a synapse. All our memories and ideas are nothing more then synapses of which our brains can develop as much as 100 trillion."

While synapses can be proven, while coincidence in time and subject of synapses with events of thinking can be proven, while inhibition of synapses can be proven to cause inhibition in thinking, none of this proves identity of thinking with synapses.

"Perhaps I haven't met your idea of logic, but you still have, like most theists, not met the burden of proof."

Not here, since that was not my point. My point was to answer yours.

Like St Thomas makes one article in the question on God's existence on answering a point opposite yours, that God's existence is self evident, one to answer your point, that it is not demonstrable, and yet another to actually demonstrate God's existence.

Here are all three of them:

Summa Theologiae : First Part : Question 2. The existence of God
http://newadvent.com/summa/1002.htm

"Atheists to not claim that God does not exists, They make no claim at all. They reject the claim by theists that god exists, thus the burden of proof is solely on the shoulders of theists who are the only one's who have made any claim."

Just saying doesn't make that so.