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

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. If indeed there are faith based miracles happening, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be subject to independent verification.Your problem is you automatically assume anything that supports your religious beliefs to be true without first questioning it. So what if Dr. Scott converted a lot of people? The Nazis converted a lot of people, too, but that doesn't mean what they claimed were right.

---

The Laminator

​

Lam wrote: I don't see any reason why Dr Scott wouldn't subject his claim of faith healing to independent verification.Well, actually I do.

Willow wrote: 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, a very sceptical approach and I am constantly prepared to revise in light of new data. I test my world view everytime I climb aboard an aircraft and trust in science. Contrast this to the typical (dare I use the word again) theistic approach, of established starting assumptions that have to be taken as true and cannot be revised. This method shuns testing and fails everytime it is exposed to it.Sure, based on general scepticism I am inclined not to believe claims of miracles and faith healing without substantiation, but I cannot exclude the possibility of their occurance. I admit though, it is somewhat hard to define miracle: history has shown us that miracles tend to initially just be misunderstood phenomenon. We could both identify what we agree is a miracle, only to both be mistaken about the actual cause (advanced alien technology, for instance).Let's try to define your world view then, in relation to healing.How do you distinguish the difference between normal healing events and healing events cause by God, or naughty deceptive Satan?How do you indentify the difference between accelerated healing in an atheist, a Haitian (supposedly invoking demon spirits) and a Christian invoking God?Spontaneous remission does occur in rare cases. The article I quoted above aboves refers to it. How do you identify the difference between spontaneous remission in an atheist, a Haitian (supposedly invoking demon spirits) and a Christian invoking God?Can any healing, even spontaneous remission, occur WITHOUT the input of God?

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:

---

Nothing happens apart from God's will. Not even a sparrow falls from the sky without his knowledge. Why should we accept the good things and not the bad? The bad things are necessary for growth and increased capacity to enjoy the good things.

---

What "growth" or "increased capacity to enjoy the good things" comes from a 6 year old who is raped and murdered?Why does God cause that to happen every day around the world?

WTThe fact that there might be 1% of suspected or claimed miracles that cannot be explained, does not prove they were miracles. It simply means they are unexplained.And why would having Atheists incharge 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?Miracles are not subject to a generally held concensus. It is not a case of "close your eyes, clap you hands and repeat, I believe in fairies. I believe in fairies."Someone is sick. Someone prays. Person gets well. Prayers answered.Does it matter if the proximit cause is spontaneous remission or a miracle? The person is cured and the prayer was answered.Many will say that is classic post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias. Okay, so what? The person is cured and the prayer was answered.Those who will doubt the reality of miracles simply exclude the possibility of miracles. And that is fine, they are free to do so. The only possible downside shows up in those few occasions when what is needed is ...a miracle.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

Only if you can come up with evidence that would stand up to the most critical analysis of an Atheist would you have anything. It is precisly because they are biased that you need them in charge of any investigation. Are you saying that theistic claims are to be judged by different standards? Atheists are the only ones that would benefit from proving theist claims. Theists already believe. Proof has no benefit, no additional information content for theists.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, if that's the case, who can be trusted to investigate any claim whatsoever?You know what the funny thing about science is? It works no matter what you believe. Try it at home. Stand in front of your TV set and believe, as hard as you can, that even though it's plugged in and it worked an hour ago, it won't work now. Go, on, believe it.And then press the power button. Surprise! Your TV works regardless of your biased worldview.None of us here are likely to be impressed by claims that can only be substantiated if you agree to already believe them. When your premise and your conclusion are the same thing - "assume God exists - therefore we can conclude that God exists" - you're just reasoning around in circles, and getting nowhere.Science is science because it's designed to eliminate the biases of the participants to the greatest degree possible. What you're talking about is an excercise in mental masturbation.

No, it is not a smokescreen. 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. What phony front? Being objective is being objective, period.To explain what I mean, let us look at the definition of "miracle".According to webster online, miracle is:1 : an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2 : an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3 Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual lawI'm going to assume that you are leaning toward the first one.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?Just think of how many things people thought were miracles 5 hundred years ago that we don't even pay attention to today. I don't agree to this, because there's no way to know. Although this is probably common sense, I never rely on common sense when debating with someone else. How do you constitute "PROVE"? Are you using the method of elimination? Are you using some kind of divine-measuring device? What do you mean by "prove miracles"?Objectively speaking, you can't assume that something is a miracle if it can't be explained by our current scientific theories and knowledges.Gotta go fast. Back for more later. Need to eat dinner.

---

The Laminator

​

Gil, I've done a lot of thinking about this lately. Since last November, I have been hoping to go to Marine Corps OCS this summer. I was supposed to leave July 11. However, my left femur has recently become dislocated making it impossible for me to go.I will not pray for God to heal it for several reasons. I believe what suffering God gives us, he intends for us to bear. In giving me this setback, God has also answered several of my other prayers (post-hoc reasoning, I know). I believe there are very few occasions when asking for a miracle is the right thing to do.The working of miracles is primarily for the purpose of strengthening faith, not for easing suffering.The pastor of my church has always believed that working of miracles was in a category of spiritual gifts that God took completely away after all of the scripture was written because there is no need for them now.I believe however, that he was wrong. God still does these things. What changed my mind that God still works miracles in the church age is the story told by Micah, the guy that lives next door in my dorm. I have already told this story in a previous thread, but I will repeat a few details.Micah was walking down the street praying when he suddenly felt like he should go see this acquaintance. He walks to her house and finds that she has another friend over who is talking about an "imaginary" friend. The girl leads him upstairs to the girl who is exhibiting symptoms of multiple personality disorder. To make a very long detailed story short: Micah presents the gospel of Christ to the girl all the while seeing the demon come and go throughout the room trying first to seduce him and second to kill him. The girl is healed from her multiple personality disorder for a short time, but says she does not think she can believe in Christ. Micah then sees the demon return inside of her and her symptoms resume.There are many interesting details to this story, but the point is because of this I believe God does still work miracles in people's lives.I know this will probably not convince anyone else though as you would have to know Micah and the other girl in the room yourself to be assured of their credibility. For the most part I agree with your method of attaining knowledge about the world. However, if we are finite beings bound to three dimensions and time, and God is infinite, and God is truth, then there must be things we cannot now comprehend or perceive, in which case, your method of obtaining knowledge will leave you terribly ignorant in certain areas. Authority is the reason for this. Without authority everything breaks down including the faith and belief of people. Most people are not thinkers like you. If every nincompoop believer out there were encouraged to get into arguments such as the ones on this site, many would lose faith, because they are not thinkers like you and incapable of coming up with their own arguments. A vast majority of believers do not even know enough Bible doctrine to understand what Christianity is all about, much less debate it.

That is one of the saddest comments I've heard in a long, long time.Are you sure you are not selling folk a little short?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion