Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now don't be silly Gordon, that would imply impartiality, balance and integrity 

Impartiality does not include sentiments such as 'These things never happen'. Has this type of statement been completely eradicated from the stock of atheist argument around here?

Any outside observer to this forum reading about impartiality, balance and integrity might, imho... ''laugh their cocks off''.

[ippy]

Impartiality does not include sentiments such as 'These things never happen'. Has this type of statement been completely eradicated from the stock of atheist argument around here?

Any outside observer to this forum reading about impartiality, balance and integrity might, imho... ''laugh their cocks off''.

Still haven't been able to  come up with any viable evidence then Vlad? Is that right?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Impartiality does not include sentiments such as 'These things never happen'. Has this type of statement been completely eradicated from the stock of atheist argument around here?

You cannot eradicate something that wasn't there to start with - it's just another of your countless straw men.

What is said though is that there's no coherent logic to suggest that miracles have happened.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still haven't been able to  come up with any viable evidence then Vlad? Is that right?

ippy

Non sequitur, possible Tu quoque.

What do you mean by viable evidence? Don't know? Try stopping to think about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

You cannot eradicate something that wasn't there to start with - it's just another of your countless straw men.
.

Careful now, My immediate recollection is that Shaker recently claimed that nobody ever stated something I had said only to have Floo state the very thing in the next post after his. Of course I mention that in the context of this forum being laundered of past posts.

Ask or read Gordon about the resurrection.

[SusanDoris]

Yesterday, all day, I had 'This page can't be displayed', so it has been interesting this morning reading about five pages of new posts!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is said though is that there's no coherent logic to suggest that miracles have happened.

Category f*** Chap

Positive assertion.....please demonstrate.

[Shaker]

My immediate recollection is that Shaker recently claimed that nobody ever stated something I had said only to have Floo state the very thing in the next post after his.

Add after to your stock of words you don't understand.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on June 30, 2017, 06:27:04 PM

    If it was just a casual conversation between two people, I would be more sceptical.
    But someone who has the courage to witness in front of an audience of two thousand must have more credibility.

Why would that be?

After the talk, Elle made herself available to individuals who wished to converse.  Even amongst Christians, there could well have been a number amongst the audience of two thousand who were sceptical of her claims, so she would need to be prepared to back up her claims to any sceptics.

[Shaker]

Why would that be?

After the talk, Elle made herself available to individuals who wished to converse.  Even amongst Christians, there could well have been a number amongst the audience of two thousand who were sceptical of her claims

If they were sceptical of claims about so-called miraculous healings they wouldn't have been Christians in the first place, one would have thought, given their prevalence in the Christian narrative.

so she would need to be prepared to back up her claims to any sceptics.

But previously you said there were no sceptics in the audience:

The people she gave this talk to were not sceptics, they were fellow Christians who would naturally assume she was telling the truth.

(Reply #136, page 6 on this thread, originally posted May 25th 2015, 11:11:44pm).

Were there sceptics or were there not?

Why would anyone simply assume that anyone telling such an implausible tale would be telling the truth?

Did anybody raise their hand and raise objections? Ask questions? Probe further? Require specifics?

I feel a story being changed in the telling here ... which given the context is rather apt really 

[ippy]

Non sequitur, possible Tu quoque.

What do you mean by viable evidence? Don't know? Try stopping to think about it.

So you're saying, in a roundabout way, that you can't find any evidence that proves your case then? Is that right?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Careful now, My immediate recollection is that Shaker recently claimed that nobody ever stated something I had said only to have Floo state the very thing in the next post after his. Of course I mention that in the context of this forum being laundered of past posts.

Ask or read Gordon about the resurrection.

I see that whataboutism is your fallacy du jour. Whether or not any of that is true is entirely irrelevant to the fact that you misrepresented atheism.

Why do you keep lying about this?   

Category f*** Chap

I’ve explained to you several times what ‘category error” actually means, yet you continue to get it wrong.

Why is that?

Positive assertion.....please demonstrate.

The “positive assertion” is that no cogent evidence has been produced for miracles. That’s necessarily true because there’s no way to eliminate the possibility of a naturalistic explanation we’ve yet to discover.

QED

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

After the talk, Elle made herself available to individuals who wished to converse.  Even amongst Christians, there could well have been a number amongst the audience of two thousand who were sceptical of her claims, so she would need to be prepared to back up her claims to any sceptics.

Why would anyone be sceptical of her claim that a surprising medical outcome had occurred?

Why wouldn't everyone be sceptical of the narrative that a miracle was therefore the cause?

[Shaker]

AB,

Why would anyone be sceptical of her claim that a surprising medical outcome had occurred?

Why wouldn't everyone be sceptical of the narrative that a miracle was therefore the cause?

I wasn't there, of course, but I assume and think I have solid grounds for saying that given the speaker, her background and the event at which the talk was given, the alleged healing almost certainly wasn't presented merely as a surprising medical outcome:

One of the most recent witness stories I heard came directly from Eleanor Mumford, (mother of Markus, of Mumford and Sons).  She recalled a time when she came across a young mother who had recently given birth to a baby daughter. She tried to congratulate the mother on her new baby, but found that she was severely depressed, because her daughter had been born with several problems including a cleft palate which made the baby look particularly ugly. Eleanor felt God asking her to pray over this woman and her child, but this was something which she had never done before, but she took a step in faith and said a prayer over them. The baby's face miraculously healed before their eyes, and when the baby was inspected in hospital, it was found that all the other problems had gone too ... I heard her give this witness in front of two thousand people at Celebrate 2015 in Ilfracombe this Easter.

(May 2015; pages 5 and 6 of the current thread).
From the Celebrate website:

Celebrate runs Catholic Charismatic, faith-filled, fun events for all ages, combining good Christian teaching, inspirational speakers and celebration of the liturgy, all in the power of the Holy Spirit. Young and old alike join together in a vibrant atmosphere to celebrate the love of God.

So in my view likely not presented as just a surprising medical outcome.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

I wasn't there, of course, but I assume and think I have solid grounds for saying that given the speaker, her background and the event at which the talk was given, the alleged healing almost certainly wasn't presented merely as a surprising medical outcome:...

I'm sure it wasn't presented as just a surprising medical outcome. The question though remains: if the facts were presented along with a narrative that the cause was a "miracle". why wouldn't everyone be sceptical of that narrative?

So in my view likely not just a surprising medical outcome.

Not "just a surprising medical outcome" or not presented as just a surprising medical outcome?

That's the point. If, say, this person had presented the story in front of an audience of medics and the factual part had been shown to be true, the response would have been something like, "that's interesting - we should do some research to find out why that happened". If she also said, "and it was a miracle wot did it" though then she'd have all her work ahed of her still to make a cogent argument to support that claim. 

[Shaker]

Shakes,

I'm sure it wasn't presented as just a surprising medical outcome. The question though remains: if the facts were presented along with a narrative that the cause was a "miracle". why wouldn't everyone be sceptical of that narrative?

I can answer that one for you, or rather, Alan can:

The people she gave this talk to were not sceptics

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The “positive assertion” is that no cogent evidence has been produced for miracles. That’s necessarily true because there’s no way to eliminate the possibility of a naturalistic explanation we’ve yet to discover.

Well I suppose I could use a wanker's ''get out'' like unknown unknowns(snork) but obviously one has to be an arseclenching autoeroticist to use that argument.

Demonstrate that there is no cogent evidence...after all you foolishly framed the statement as a positive assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Well I suppose I could use a wanker's ''get out'' like unknown unknowns(snork) but obviously one has to be an arseclenching autoeroticist to use that argument.

Demonstrate that there is no cogent evidence...after all you foolishly framed the statement as a positive assertion.

Which part of the explanation is confusing you?

"I can't identify a natural explanation, therefore miracle" is yer basic, common-or-garden argument from personal incredulity. No natural explanation available tells you one thing, and one thing only: that there is no natural explanation available. 

If you want to establish a logical path from that to "miracle" then by all means try, but no-one ever has or, until and unless one day we know every possible naturalistic explanation there ever could be, ever will. (And even if we did that by the way, how would we know that we know?) 

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Which part of the explanation is confusing you?

"I can't identify a natural explanation, therefore miracle" is yer basic, common-or-garden argument from personal incredulity. No natural explanation available tells you one thing, and one thing only: that there is no natural explanation available. 

If you want to establish a logical path from that to "miracle" then by all means try, but no-one ever has or, until and unless one day we know every possible naturalistic explanation there ever could be, ever will. (And even if we did that by the way, how would we know that we know?)

Not nearly sufficient just the usual handwaving.
You made the assertion, justify that assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Not nearly sufficient just the usual handwaving.
You made the assertion, justify that assertion.

I just did. Try reading it again veeeeeery slowly for comprehension.

Look, I'll even give you a clue: no-one can demonstrate "miracle" for the same reason no-one can demonstrate a four-sided triangle. Some things are just logically impossible.

Let me know if and when it sinks in won't you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

I just did. Try reading it again veeeeeery slowly for comprehension.

Look, I'll even give you a clue: no-one can demonstrate "miracle" for the same reason no-one can demonstrate a four-sided triangle. Some things are just logically impossible.

Let me know if and when it sinks in won't you.

You are just giving some spin on why you cannot justify your own assertion...... Read the posts find out what it is you positively asserted then either ''weetwact'' it or justify it

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

You are just giving some spin on why you cannot justify your own assertion...... Read the posts find out what it is you positively asserted then either ''weetwact'' it or justify it

Lying about an explanation doesn't invalidate it. Try again even more sloooooooowly - you can't demonstrate "miracle" unless you can eliminate all possible naturalistic explanations.

If you think you have a method to do that though, by all means share.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Lying about an explanation doesn't invalidate it. Try again even more sloooooooowly - you can't demonstrate "miracle" unless you can eliminate all possible naturalistic explanations.

If you think you have a method to do that though, by all means share.

Still doesn't satisfy your original assertion and on that bombshell I'll bid you goodnight.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Still doesn't satisfy your original assertion and on that bombshell I'll bid you goodnight.

Possibly you missed my earlier post when I told you to stop fucking lying?

[Alan Burns]

I can answer that one for you, or rather, Alan can:

    The people she gave this talk to were not sceptics

The comment you quote may have been presumptuous.

It would be more correct to say that I was not aware of any sceptics in the audience.  There were no questions, but lots of applause.  The point I was making earlier was that she would have had to be confident in answering any sceptics had they questioned her.  And she may well have had to do so in the informal discussions she engaged in after the talk.

I would also like to point out that the miraculous healing was not the main subject of her talk.  Most of her talk was concerned with her own journey in faith which occurred before she came across the healing.