Long term miracle cures test

Quote: FrGamble

There is a whole team of doctors and experts who will examine any claim of the miraculous at Lourdes with great rigor and scientific expertise.

No doubt, you can find somebody to
verify anything if you look hard enough.
The first thing I would check would be
their religious affiliations. If they are
connected to any god religion in any
way, of course they would be eliminated
from the 'team'. Bias cannot rear it's ugly
head in science, or what good is it.

I suspect once that's done, we'll hear the
sound of crickets from the 'team'.

Quote: Evenbob

Absolutely everything. It flies completely in
the face of everything we know about how
the universe works. A god is supernatural
with supernatural powers. Look at the word,
super-natural. It means outside the realm
of the natural world. There is zero evidence
for anything supernatural, James Randi still
has his million dollars.

For some reason you want the world ruled
by superstition and magic. Why is that.

You are absolutely wrong. First of all super-natural means above nature not outside of it. This is important because there is nothing unnatural about creation, formation, or movement of material things. Yet all of this requires something above nature itself to begin. Nature is flush with evidence of creation, formation, and motion. This requires something supernatural to begin it. I continue to be flabbergasted by your failure to recognize this point. It need not be the Christian understanding of God, nor Vishnu, Zeus, or even a benign force but it is necessary.

It is you who want to call upon superstition, magic, and just your crazy gut feeling that everything has always existed for which there is no evidence and for which everything you see cries out to you no. Why do you hold onto this ludicrous notion when everything is pointing to the fact that you are not correct?

Quote: Evenbob

No doubt, you can find somebody to
verify anything if you look hard enough.
The first thing I would check would be
their religious affiliations. If they are
connected to any god religion in any
way, of course they would be eliminated
from the 'team'. Bias cannot rear it's ugly
head in science, or what good is it.

I suspect once that's done, we'll hear the
sound of crickets from the 'team'.

You should first of all check your prejudice and bias at the door if you expect others to do the same. I don't see why someone who is Catholic or believes in God cannot be objective in scientific research and examination. Do you think they cannot? Maybe you should actually look at their research which they publish and have peer reviewed? It is hard in strict scientific studies to be biased if the facts are against you, surely you above all others should be aware of this.

The good news is that the office does not hire based on religious affiliations and there are non-Catholics and even those who struggle with the existence of God as members of the office.

Quote: FrGamble

First of all super-natural means above nature not outside of it.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
1. attributed to some force beyond the laws of nature.

Sounds pretty outside to me.

Quote:

This is important because there is nothing unnatural about creation

Creation of the universe by some supernatural
being is about as far from what we understand
as 'natural' as you can get. It flies in the face
of every universal law there is. It's the story
you cook up when you're wandering in the
desert thinking the world is flat, the sun goes
around the earth, and a devil caused your son
to be stillborn.

Quote:

Why do you hold onto this ludicrous notion when everything is pointing to the fact that you are not correct?

Show me the evidence to the contrary, you
can't because you have none. You're
'flabbergasted' that science fails to see your
religious point of view that something 'above
nature' created everything. Science was born
by rejecting ideas that have superstition at
their core, not by embracing them. And we've
done nothing but benefit from it since we
came to our senses and started seeing religion
for what it is. Fables and dreams and superstition
and nonsense.

Quote: Evenbob

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
1. attributed to some force beyond the laws of nature.

Sounds pretty outside to me.

Okay this is just semantics, I was taking the words literal, but we are on the same page.

Quote:

Creation of the universe by some supernatural
being is about as far from what we understand
as 'natural' as you can get. It flies in the face
of every universal law there is. It's the story
you cook up when you're wandering in the
desert thinking the world is flat, the sun goes
around the earth, and a devil caused your son
to be stillborn.

It was thought of by one of the greatest philosophers we know of and has been held by thinking people throughout history. If you really thought about it, it would be obvious to even you.

Quote:

Show me the evidence to the contrary, you
can't because you have none. You're
'flabbergasted' that science fails to see your
religious point of view that something 'above
nature' created everything.

The scientific community usually doesn't speculate on things above their pay grade. However, most every scientist I have read either admits that the universe had some beginning or doesn't answer the question.

Quote:

Science was born
by rejecting ideas that have superstition at
their core, not by embracing them. And we've
done nothing but benefit from it since we
came to our senses and started seeing religion
for what it is. Fables and dreams and superstition
and nonsense.

Science was born to understand how the natural world and the universe works and to explain its wonders. That is why the Church has always supported and encouraged it, including coming up with the scientific method. We have benefited from the sciences, no where near as much as we have benefited from religion. There is nothing superstitious about believing the universe had a beginning, in fact it is supported by modern cosmology. You need to open your eyes and start thinking along the lines of science. It is your silly and superstitious idea of an eternal material universe that is unscientific.

Quote: FrGamble

First of all, what is so extraordinary about the existence of a God?

The same thing that is so extraordinary about the existence of unicorns: complete lack of evidence.

Quote:

It is fairly obvious that something like a first cause or an unmoved mover is needed for our universe to exist.

Then you're either 1) multiplying entities ad infinitum, as the creator has their universe which requires a creator who have their universe which requires a creator.... or 2) pulling a convenient "THE CREATION BUCK STOPS HERE" sign out of thin air.

Quote: FrGamble

It was thought of by one of the greatest philosophers we know of

A few other things philosophers got wrong.
Plato thought light came form the eye.
Aristotle thought the brain was just a cooling
device. Aristotle thought the universe was
filled with ether. Aristotle thought the earth
was the center of the universe. It really does
go on and on, the things the great philosophers
were wrong about.

Quote:

However, most every scientist I have read either admits that the universe had some beginning or doesn't answer the question.

For now. You want to assume our learning
curve is over, lets jump right to the conclusion
the nomads came up with 4000 years ago.

Quote:

That is why the Church has always supported and encouraged it, including coming up with the scientific method.

I love when you talk like this. Nobody and no
group came up with the scientific method. It's
an evolution of ideas that has contributors from
every age and walk of life over millennia. The
Church just loves to take the credit for everything,
though. That you believe they have 'always
supported' science just shows the level of brain
washing you've been subjected to.



"The history of the scientific method is a fascinating and long one, covering thousands of years of history. The development of the scientific method involves some of the most enlightened cultures in history, as well as some great scientists, philosophers and theologians. It is a cliché, but we really are standing on the shoulders of giants."

https://explorable.com/history-of-the-scientific-method

Quote: Nareed

Then you're either 1) multiplying entities ad infinitum, as the creator has their universe which requires a creator who have their universe which requires a creator.... or 2) pulling a convenient "THE CREATION BUCK STOPS HERE" sign out of thin air.

It is definitely the second option. It is not just convenient it is necessary. It is also not pulled out of thin air. It is the obvious answer to why anything moves and it is the only way to avoid the impossibility of an infinite regress. If something is moving, like the universe for example, then it has to have a force that acted upon it. In order to avoid the question, "well then what acted on the force that acted upon the universe? And what then acted upon that force? etc..." Then you need to have a non-contingent being or an unmoved mover. Something that does not depend upon anything else for its being or for its movement. This is just common sense and while maybe not convenient for those who think things just popped into existence out of thin air, it is nevertheless true.

Quote: Evenbob

A few other things philosophers got wrong.
Plato thought light came form the eye.
Aristotle thought the brain was just a cooling
device. Aristotle thought the universe was
filled with ether. Aristotle thought the earth
was the center of the universe. It really does
go on and on, the things the great philosophers
were wrong about.

Did you notice that everything you mentioned that philosophers got wrong was science. That makes sense doesn't it? Why instead don't you try to say what is wrong with the idea that if something is moving it has a cause for that motion. Then why don't you explain how there can be a real infinite regress?

Quote:

I love when you talk like this. Nobody and no
group came up with the scientific method. It's
an evolution of ideas that has contributors from
every age and walk of life over millennia.

That is a good point.

Quote: FrGamble

In order to avoid the question, "well then what acted on the force that acted upon the universe? And what then acted upon that force? etc..." Then you need to have a non-contingent being or an unmoved mover.

"Because my theory needs it to get rid of the infinities," is not a valid, real reason.

Do you know what happens past the event horizon of a black hole? No one does. Current theory breaks down. Now, what does that mean? It means the equations of General Relativity resolve into infinite values. This means the theory is incomplete (like Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation was). Thus far, no one has invented something to get rid of the infinities.

Your argument seems to be mere analogy. A watch presupposes a watch-maker, a stork presupposes a stork-maker, and a universe presupposes a universe-maker. Fine. But then a creator presupposes a creator-maker, and ain't we got fun and an infinite regress.

Saying the creator is the Ultimate Cause, or Unmovable Mover, is, if you'll pardon the vulgarity, Handwavium.