Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2013, 12:33 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(30-10-2013 04:10 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  As a matter of faith? A claim is being made here. It requires no faith to reject poorly evidenced claims.

Yes a claim is being made. Dunning is claiming the "healed amputee" was a scam artist and he believes that claim as a matter of faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 12:53 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(31-10-2013 12:33 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 04:10 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  As a matter of faith? A claim is being made here. It requires no faith to reject poorly evidenced claims.

Yes a claim is being made. Dunning is claiming the "healed amputee" was a scam artist and he believes that claim as a matter of faith.

He suggested an alternative reading of the available evidence. On the basis of the fact that it had desirable properties like not violating the known laws of physics he adjudged it more likely than the original explanation. But he didn't commit even to that explanation. He was using it to show that *believing* the original is not a necessary consequence of the evidence.

It is in no way equivalent to simply accepting the original explanation, nor is it simply making up some other random explanation and accepting that purely because it fits better with his ideology, which is what you're trying to imply.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 06:46 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(31-10-2013 12:33 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 04:10 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  As a matter of faith? A claim is being made here. It requires no faith to reject poorly evidenced claims.

Yes a claim is being made. Dunning is claiming the "healed amputee" was a scam artist and he believes that claim as a matter of faith.

No, he is rejecting a claim for lack of evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 11:11 PM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(31-10-2013 06:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, he is rejecting a claim for lack of evidence.

No, he is rejecting a claim by handwaving away the evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 03:57 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(31-10-2013 11:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(31-10-2013 06:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, he is rejecting a claim for lack of evidence.

No, he is rejecting a claim by handwaving away the evidence.

I quickly read The Miracle of Calanda and I agree that it is more likely that it is a hoax than it is that the limb was actually regrown. We don't know anything about the journalists that recorded the alleged event and anything of their credibility. There are so many alternative explanations that are mundane that I don't find the miraculous explanation compelling.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
01-11-2013, 06:15 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
Look heywood. Just because some piece of evidence agrees with your particular set of ideas or worldview does not mean that evidence is valid. Just because some piece of evidence disagrees does not mean that evidence is invalid. Evidence must stand on its own merit.

You have presented as your best account of miraculous de-amputation a 400 year old pre-scientific report that lacks any enduring physical evidence that the leg was amputated before the miracle. That's a bit like claiming that an anonymously-written 2000 year old book is certainly true and is a reliable source of information about God and his relationship with humanity, so I can see how you would be confused. The point is that sceptical analysis of questionable claims requires a high standard of evidence that is harder to achieve the more distantly in the past an event occurred. Tricksters, magicians and frauds have existed in all ages.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there is no extraordinary evidence here. It's a documented claim of a miracle, like many other documented cases of many other miracles, none of which to date have stood up to serious sceptical enquiry. If you could establish that miracles actually occur in the real world then we can treat old evidence of miracles a little more seriously, but without evidence that miracles actually exists you are lumion's territory with the subtle world: There's no evidential basis available to anyone but the credulous to support the notion that these things could even possibly be true let alone be true in fact. We do, however, have contemporary examples of "one-legged" beggars who in fact have two functioning legs[1].

So which do we believe? The one that fits with our world view, perhaps? The one that reinforces our existing opinions? My tendency is to veer away from credulity and sceptically assess positive claims. Since there is a credible alternative explanation available that fits with what we know is possible I am sceptical of a supernatural interpretation of the same evidence.

Do I reject this account because I am an atheist? No. I reject this account because I am sceptical. I am an atheist because I am sceptical.

You've had a peek into the atheist subculture. Why not spend some time taking a look at sceptical culture[2][3][4]?

[1] http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/ch...ift-income
[2] http://www.skepticality.com/
[3] http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
[4] http://www.randi.org/site/

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
01-11-2013, 12:38 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 12:42 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(01-11-2013 03:57 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(31-10-2013 11:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  No, he is rejecting a claim by handwaving away the evidence.

I quickly read The Miracle of Calanda and I agree that it is more likely that it is a hoax than it is that the limb was actually regrown. We don't know anything about the journalists that recorded the alleged event and anything of their credibility. There are so many alternative explanations that are mundane that I don't find the miraculous explanation compelling.

I believe the evidence shows an event happened. That event was this. People knew the man with one leg and then later knew the man with two legs. Second, the people at the time attributed this change about the man to a miracle preformed by God.

Now if you have an established world view that God works miracles like healing the sick, then this is pretty good evidence to support that view. If you do not believe in God, or do not believe God heals the sick(like me) then you have to concoct additional "facts" to dispute this evidence....like the journalist were unreliable or the man was a scam artist, etc.

I don't have a problem with anyone who does not find the evidence compelling enough to prove there was indeed a miracle. Where I have a problem is when people try to show there wasn't a miracle by concocting additional "facts". Like it or not I have to accept that the Miracle of Calanda supports a world view I do not share.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 12:55 PM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(01-11-2013 12:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I believe the evidence shows an event happened. That event was this. People knew the man with one leg and then later knew the man with two legs. Second, the people at the time attributed this change about the man to a miracle preformed by God.

Now if you have an established world view that God works miracles like healing the sick, then this is pretty good evidence to support that view. If you do not believe in God, or do not believe God heals the sick(like me) then you have to concoct additional "facts" to dispute this evidence....like the journalist were unreliable or the man was a scam artist, etc.

I don't have a problem with anyone who does not find the evidence compelling enough to prove there was indeed a miracle. Where I have a problem is when people try to show there wasn't a miracle by concocting additional "facts". Like it or not I have to accept that the Miracle of Calanda supports a world view I do not share.

I believe the evidence shows an event happened. That event was this. People knew the temple at Baalbek was constructed and then later knew the temple couldn't have been built with the technology of the time. Second, the people attributed this construction of the temple to aliens.

Now if you have an established world view that aliens perform works like building ancient monuments, then this is pretty good evidence to support that view. If you do not believe in aliens, or do not believe aliens build monuments (like me) then you have to concoct additional "facts" to dispute this evidence....like the archaeologists are unreliable or the proponent was a scam artist, etc.

I don't have a problem with anyone who does not find the evidence compelling enough to prove there were indeed aliens. Where I have a problem is when people try to show there weren't aliens by concocting additional "facts". Like it or not I have to accept that the temple at Baalbek supports a world view I do not share.

...

How do you not realize how insane you sound. Are you compelled to accept any testimony you cannot personally and immediately disprove conclusively? 'Cause if so, I have several bridges to sell you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 01:11 PM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(01-11-2013 12:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 03:57 AM)Chippy Wrote:  I quickly read The Miracle of Calanda and I agree that it is more likely that it is a hoax than it is that the limb was actually regrown. We don't know anything about the journalists that recorded the alleged event and anything of their credibility. There are so many alternative explanations that are mundane that I don't find the miraculous explanation compelling.

I believe the evidence shows an event happened. That event was this. People knew the man with one leg and then later knew the man with two legs. Second, the people at the time attributed this change about the man to a miracle preformed by God.

Now if you have an established world view that God works miracles like healing the sick, then this is pretty good evidence to support that view. If you do not believe in God, or do not believe God heals the sick(like me) then you have to concoct additional "facts" to dispute this evidence....like the journalist were unreliable or the man was a scam artist, etc.

I don't have a problem with anyone who does not find the evidence compelling enough to prove there was indeed a miracle. Where I have a problem is when people try to show there wasn't a miracle by concocting additional "facts". Like it or not I have to accept that the Miracle of Calanda supports a world view I do not share.

What the journalist said was that there is insufficient evidence to show that his leg had actually been amputated.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(01-11-2013 12:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 12:38 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I believe the evidence shows an event happened. That event was this. People knew the man with one leg and then later knew the man with two legs. Second, the people at the time attributed this change about the man to a miracle preformed by God.

Now if you have an established world view that God works miracles like healing the sick, then this is pretty good evidence to support that view. If you do not believe in God, or do not believe God heals the sick(like me) then you have to concoct additional "facts" to dispute this evidence....like the journalist were unreliable or the man was a scam artist, etc.

I don't have a problem with anyone who does not find the evidence compelling enough to prove there was indeed a miracle. Where I have a problem is when people try to show there wasn't a miracle by concocting additional "facts". Like it or not I have to accept that the Miracle of Calanda supports a world view I do not share.

I believe the evidence shows an event happened. That event was this. People knew the temple at Baalbek was constructed and then later knew the temple couldn't have been built with the technology of the time. Second, the people attributed this construction of the temple to aliens.

Now if you have an established world view that aliens perform works like building ancient monuments, then this is pretty good evidence to support that view. If you do not believe in aliens, or do not believe aliens build monuments (like me) then you have to concoct additional "facts" to dispute this evidence....like the archaeologists are unreliable or the proponent was a scam artist, etc.

I don't have a problem with anyone who does not find the evidence compelling enough to prove there were indeed aliens. Where I have a problem is when people try to show there weren't aliens by concocting additional "facts". Like it or not I have to accept that the temple at Baalbek supports a world view I do not share.

...

How do you not realize how insane you sound. Are you compelled to accept any testimony you cannot personally and immediately disprove conclusively? 'Cause if so, I have several bridges to sell you.

Your analogy would follow it was documented by the people present during the construction of the temple of Baalbek that the temple was constructed by aliens. But the way you presented your analogy in such a way that it does not all mirror the events at Calanda, all you have done is created a strawman and thus an impotent counter point.

Also there is a difference between acknowledging something as evidence and accepting that evidence as definitive proof. There are different kinds of evidence...you should know this if you are a scientist. I acknowledge that the case of the Miracle of Calanda is circumstantial evidence that supports a particular world view......while you pretend it isn't evidence at all by concocting new "facts" to hand wave away the evidence.....which is silly in my opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: