Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.

Gilgamesh:So you believe your friend Domenic got healed by God ?

quote:

---

GILGAMESH: The point I was trying to make is that the evidence provided by many Christians to support the claim that God influences their lives through answered prayer, miracles and faith healing, is merely a Christian interpretation of the the same events that are capable of happening to all of us.

---

19 posts in and you finally cease the subterfuge and reveal what we all knew you were going to say anyway - miracles don't exist.This conclusion is based on strenuous contortions implemented to explain away the crediting of God as the source of a miracle.The point is, when a christian, or anyone for that matter, credits their faith in God for a miracle healing - it would not have happened unless they embraced God by faith.You are assigning every miraculous healing claim to actually be explained by known natural phenomenon. This does nothing to explain the healed persons claim that God did the healing and the fact it would not have happened unless faith in God was exercised.The arrogance of presuming EVERYONE to be wrong/mistaken or delusional is elitist. All because of a starting a priori belief that God doesn't exist. Miracle healings do happen whether you admit it or not/know it or not.Dr. Scott was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer by three separate hospitals (UCLA/City of Hope/Glendale Adventist) These three hospitals and his personal doctor all confirmed terminal prostate cancer: 10 to 12 months to live.He had a double 10 on the Gleason scale - totally cancerous prostate both sides.Surgery and radiation could prolong his life 5 -10 years but with serious side effects. Treatment of some kind MUST begin immediately or risk that the cancer will spread if it hadn't already.Dr. Scott chose to claim healing from the Atonement of Christ and refused treatment. He said "If you have no faith then you better get treatment".He took communion and got a PSA blood test. It went from 10 point something to 6 point something overnight. He took communion again and it dropped to 4 point something. At 75 years old he is allowed to have a PSA of 6 point something. But in a span of a month or so it dropped down to 0.4Dr. Scott " I was sitting on my porch with my wife when I suddenly felt a rolling sensation in my stomach....I felt the hand of God remove the cancer right then and there." After being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer Dr. Scott is completely healed and he never had surgery or radiation.His miracle has been meticulously documented and the story of it is being produced.It is what it is. If Dr. Scott didn't have faith it would not have happened.If you want to arbitrarily claim that cancer is misdiagnosed and it is commonly known to go into remission then this is true, but to say these two things explain all the "miracles" is your worldview dogma.

quote:

---

WILLOWTREE: If you want to arbitrarily claim that cancer is misdiagnosed and it is commonly known to go into remission then this is true, but to say these two things explain all the "miracles" is your worldview dogma.

---

Gil:Your response to my post failed to address the above quote.Also, for you to add to your dismissal of true miracles (Dr. Scott's) as "crap" is a very meaningless and simplistic insult-dismissal. I thought the entire collective posts of yours in this debate were very well written and explained (even though I disagreed) until this one word dismissal came. BTW, Dr. Scott has converted thousands, nay tens of thousands.

quote:

---

GILGAMESH: I did miss that quote

---

And you still have evaded it completely. Don't bother now - it was rhetorical anyway.My entire point is that your starting assumption (God/miracles don't exist) keeps concluding the conclusion under the guise of objective enquiry. Your particular atheist worldview invents a substitute explanation every step of the way without ever clearly identifying a criteria of falsification for your explanations.In other words, what would suffice as evidence of a miracle that you guys would accept ?Answer: You will say something about "objective evidence that can be independantly examined/verified", but this is saying nothing, because this is always the criteria in any quest for truth. My point is that you will conclude faithful to your worldview despite any contrary evidence, which means you are claiming an objectivity that doesn't exist. The objectivity doesn't exist because THERE ARE certainly miracle healings whether it is admitted or not.

Hi Sleeping Dragon:As pertaining to your point 1:I am lousy with lottery analogies and such, so I will just say "no comment".

quote:

---

Point 2:

​

Surely you have heard of miraculous apparitions in other religions? From the Hindu statues that drank milk to the statue of Vigin Mary that cried tears of blood; from the impenetrable skin of Shoalin monks to the God-like feats claimed by the founder of Falun Dafa.

​

How do they fit into the Christian view that the biblical God has a monopoly on miracles? Are they all fake? Are Christian claims true?

​

Or are you going to attribute them to Satan (a.k.a. the universal scapegoat)?

---

As to claims of miracle in other religions:Christianity/Bible teaches that there are TWO and only TWO possible sources for miracle - God or Satan.The God of the Bible does not claim monopoly on all miracles. What is the source of this presumption ?There are witch doctors in Haiti and Luzon that can do things that would disturb your mind ! They admit their source (demons).The Bible teaches that the False Prophet will do mind boggling miracles and get the masses to be loyal to Antichrist.Indigenous to Biblical claims is the reality of Satan, thus your dismissal of him must include God or your position does not make sense or have any integrity.

quote:

---

...I would like to know, how can we tell the difference between miracles performed by God, and those performed by Satan? Can you please kindly answer this question?

---

If you seek Jesus for a miracle and get one then it was from God/Jesus.If you seek demons/Satan for a "miracle" and get one then it was from Satan/demons.The Bible says if you seek after God - you won't get the devil.God knows your intent and if it is Him then the source of your miracles will be Him.

quote:

---

But I haven't dismissed Satan. Haven't I mentioned him in my post? I merely didn't think it too likely that Satan would perform miracles on-par with the Almighty to such extents that we can't tell the difference between the two.

---

You cited Satan in a "scapegoat" context which implied that to invoke him would not be valid/acceptable.Your quote above doesn't make sense.You are saying:Satan performs, numerically, far fewer miracles than God, therefore, there is no way to tell the difference ?To me this doesn't make sense.

Gilgamesh has completely evaded answering the content of my last two posts - so I will continue the debate with you Lam.

quote:

---

Actually, he is approaching the issue very scientifically. Everytime a scientist comes up with a hypothesis or theory, he is suppose to try his best to disprove his own creation.

---

I agree this is the goal but Gil has not done this, he has an assumption (God/miracles don't exist) then he proceeds to conclude this assumption under the disguise that he would admit a miracle happened if it could be "objectively and independantly confirmed/verified". This is a smokescreen. Gil will always conclude faithful to his worldview, which I don't have a problem with if he would only admit it. The problem is this phony front of objective enquiry masking the worldview which is constantly concluding the assumption.99% of miracles are not; for arguments sake I will agree.But the remaining 1% PROVE miracles do exist. This 1% is where Gil and company depart from their so called scientific enquiry and stick their head in the proverbial sand.

quote:

---

If indeed there are faith based miracles happening, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be subject to independent verification.

---

If the person receiving the miracle wants to then fine.You also need to define "independant verification".I'm sorry, atheists in charge of I.V. is not I.V.I.V. would have to include a previously determined criteria, and once that criteria is met or not met then that conclusion must be embraced by both sides. The problem is Gil and company would never keep their end of the bargain. Their mind is made up according to their worldview which is fine. The dirty rat here, like I said, is the facade of objectivity that does not really exist because of the fact that there is not any circumstance or verification process that Gil would ever conclude a miracle happened regardless of what he claims.

quote:

---

You will be hard pressed to convince me that my "world view" is not the most effective method for attaining knowledge about the world. I start with minimal starting assumptions

---

Hi Gil:Everyones worldview contains their bias. Everyone believes their worldview is superior. If you truly want to affirm the superiority of your worldview then convincing other people of your objectivity is the goal. This means you embrace the truth even when it appears to contradict/disprove your worldview. When this happens you are viewed as objective/biased for truth AND at the same time you score points for your worldview.Atheist worldview is critically defective because its starting assumptions (few that they be) assumes there is no God/miracles. Theism is just the opposite; many assumptions including the existence of a knowable God and His miracles. This is an irreconciable gulf - the existence of God.My only gripe with you is the "objective" disguise of your conclusions, which hides the simple truth that you will always conclude the assumptions of your worldview regardless of what you say.I had already complimented you for how well written this topic has been. You seemed to have all the bases covered with a plausible explanation based on the evidence you cited and provided which is what a debater is supposed to do.Then this rational and well written topic instantly departs from the respectful parameters just mentioned when I briefly outlined Dr. Scott's miracle. You then suddenly said it was a "lie/crap".Surely you didn't create a topic about the explanation of miracles and intend to dismiss claims of a miracle by other debaters as "crap". We know you atheists think miracles do not happen, why didn't you respond to what I wrote with some explanation already contained in your thesis ?This sort of street term dismissal does nothing to promote you or your worldview as objective.I also said Dr. Scott's miracle was meticulously documented and is being produced. When the documentation is available I will let you know. Please refrain from calling people "liars" when you supposedly have an entire topic full of alternate explanations.Dr. Scott is the most integrity filled man I have ever known, and he, by the way, says his atheist professors at Stanford posssessed more integrity in their little finger than any christian he has ever encountered.I have to suddenly go off line - when I return I will finish responding to the remainder of your post.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 06-10-2004 07:03 PM

quote:

---

And why would having Atheists in charge of IV negate IV? If you were trying to prove that miracles happen, I would think you'd want the most sceptic folk doing the tests?

---

Because they are biased in favor of their worldview (as are theists).
What constitutes a person who is against theism to be qualified to objectively judge theist claims ?Its all a matter of trust. The wolf is not to be trusted to guard the hen house regardless of what he says or wears.If atheists conclude no miracle happened then we are back to square one - "how is it that I am not surprised".This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 06-10-2004 05:24 PM

Hi Schrafinator !Are you not an agnostic ?If so, what exactly does that mean ?I am just curious - nothing else.thanks,WT

Believe it or not Crashfrog I agree with the underlying content of this reply of yours.

quote:

---

Well, if that's the case, who can be trusted to investigate any claim whatsoever?

---

But the claim we are discussing is the existence of a miracle. The non existence of miracles is atheist worldview foundational truth. All I am saying is for Gil and company to have in place a mouth stopping response when someone says your conclusions are congruent with your worldview. Gil will say "maybe, but, the conclusions are based on the evidence" and if the evidence is gathered and produced and interpreted by atheists then the question still begs.Crashfrog:Is it ever possible that a team of theists and atheists could ever conduct reseach and experiments to verify and or debunk claims of miracle healing ?

quote:

---

Science automatically assumes that every phenomenon has a scientific explanation whether it can be currently explained or that we need to wait 100, 1000, or 10,000 years before our understanding of the natural world is advance enough.

---

In other words, miracles are excluded regardless. This is my exact point/complaint.Gilgamesh is concluding according to his worldview under the DISGUISE of an objectivity that doesn't exist.

quote:

---

What phony front? Being objective is being objective, period.

---

How are you objective if you subscribe to a methodology that states a natural explanation must always be found and will always be found.
We are debating claims of miracle and you and Gil are self admittedly using a methodology that always excludes the possibility of a miracle ?
This makes no sense. Please help me here Lam.

quote:

---

The problem comes when trying to tell what is a miracle and what is not is how do we know if it is divinely inspired or it is just something that our current scientific knowledge can't comprehend yet?

---

Loaded question.Assumes miracles happen momentarily, but only to make point about methodology being used can eventually explain that there are no miracles. You are concluding according to your worldview assumptions.

quote:

---

Just think of how many things people thought were miracles 5 hundred years ago that we don't even pay attention to today.

---

Such as ......

quote:

---

Objectively speaking, you can't assume that something is a miracle if it can't be explained by our current scientific theories and knowledges.

---

Why not ?

quote:

---

Why is there Evil?
Because of Satan.

---

Nope; because Adam/Eve CHOSE to sin and this act of willful disobedience then gave Satan temporary control over mankind and the Earth.Yes, it does originate from him, but only via cooperating mankind. Man is now born outside of Eden; separated from the source of life/God; under the jurisdiction of Satan.

quote:

---

Why did man fall?
Because of Satan.

---

Nope; because Eve didn't believe what God said and she chose to doubt God by listening to Satan. Adam was pussy whipped and blamed Eve. Man fell because he chose to disregard what God said. Show me from Genesis WHERE there is ANY deception by the serpent/Satan ?
The serpent just plain lied and Eve knew it was a lie BECAUSE she just got done repeating to the serpent what God's orders concerning the Tree was.

quote:

---

Why was there a deceptive snake in a perfect Garden of Eden?
That IS Satan.

---

Because God wanted it so.Satan has agreed to oppose God concerning mankind because not to agree to oppose means he must go to his eternal abode - hell. (before he has to) ALSO because God acknowledges Satan's implacable anger towards Him for choosing not to forgive him of rebelling. Satan cannot hurt God personally, he can only extract revenge for not being forgiven by destroying that which God loves - mankind. God allows this so to test mankind for the purpose of replacing the void left in heaven when Satan rebelled.

quote:

---

Why are there miracles in other religions?
Me: Maybe...just maybe...could it be...Satan?

---

Yes, there are only TWO possible sources.

quote:

---

In short, a summary of your view:

​

Pray to Biblical god:

​

If I ask God for something (say, cure my dog's cancer), and my dog is healed, this is evidence for God's miracle (God answered my prayer).

​

If my dog dies, then this means that God is testing my faith.

​

Pray to other Gods:

​

If I ask anything/anyone apart from God to cure my dog of cancer, and my dog heals, it's Satan's miracle.

​

If my dog dies, then...then what? What does it mean? Satan's not listening? Satan is testing my..."unfaith"?

​

Please check if my summary of your perspective is correct (change if they are not) and answer the question above. Thanks.

---

No this is YOUR view of what you think my view is.YOU say to pray apart from God equals a petition to Satan. I never said or implied that.Show me where I said that ?