Originally posted by Spartacus

Why shouldn't the testimony be accepted? What makes the sources unreliable?

they are not. I've argued with atheists bout Lourdes for years. I have yet to meet a single one who even tired to research Lourdes. they are so full of producible assumptions they don't even bother with facts.

That Randy idiot who offers money to anyone who can prove a miracle admitted to me he has never even tried to study Lourdes.

see my miracle pages:

http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

Originally posted by Doug Shaver

Withholding judgment is not the same thing as ignoring.

To believe that X happened because, and solely because, somebody says X happened is to assume that the somebody is a reliable source with regard to events of the X kind. In this case I have no warrant for that assumption.

they don't just say it, the rules stipulate they have to provide the diagnostic evidence from the doctors who diagnosed the case. They also do their own tests.

Originally posted by Griggsy

And we only have hearsay o f those attributed to Yeshua. Our background tells us that such were just psychosomatic if occurred at all.
The "miracle" of changed hearts happens with other religions and ideologies. She who helps herself , helps herself without divine input but uses her belief as that placebo to motivate herself.
Yes, so, why not be a naturalist?
[/b] Oh, the Vatican also declares that it is up to the individual to think that that forgery the Shroud of Turin is real, aiding to superstition as ever .
I 'd favor laws against those charlatan faith-healers as with any other scam artists.
Thankfully, there are laws against letting parents or others endangering children with faith-healing and no medical care.
And religious people come out against such healings but not enough ..
Thankfully, many religious people object to this sort of thing! They pray and seek medical care for themselves and others.
What about that claim that the Elephant God gave that woman ability to conceive? Why not believe that Muhammad went to Heaven on that horse? Why believe in those unsubstantiated ones of the Tanakh and the Testament?
And with increased medical knowledge, there are fewer and fewer miracles! Again, when investigate properly no Vatican-approved miracle or faith-healing claims are supported.
Yes the " miracle" is that as Hume notes that there is religion!
Why not naturalism?

with increased medical knowledge there are fewer confirmed miracles, but that does not prove that all of them are just misunderstood natural healing. Bad logic.

see my miracle pages:

http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

Originally posted by Doug Shaver

Not my world view. It has nothing to fear from facts. For one reason, it knows a thing or two about distinguishing facts from testimony alleging facts. For some worldviews, there is no difference between the two as long as the testimony supports the worldview.

then read some facts:

see my miracle pages:

http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

Originally posted by Metacrock

they are not. I've argued with atheists bout Lourdes for years. I have yet to meet a single one who even tired to research Lourdes. they are so full of producible assumptions they don't even bother with facts.

That Randy idiot who offers money to anyone who can prove a miracle admitted to me he has never even tried to study Lourdes.

see my miracle pages:

http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

I'd rather let the atheists speak for themselves.

I'm weird that way.

Originally posted by Soundsurfr

Here's my prediction: There will never be one.

As soon as an amputee is cured, let me know.

I really am tired of the whole why wont God heal amputees question. God does heal amputees, there is documentary evidence of it just like every other types of healing God does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

The miracle of Calanda is an event that, according to 17th century documents (see below), took place in Calanda, Spain in 1640: the documents state that a young farmer's leg was restored to him after having been amputated two and a half years earlier.


Not to mention Jesus healing Malchus ear.

So now, instead of it being 'why won't God heal amputees' it becomes 'why won't God heal amputees when Skeptic X thinks He should.'

A written record of something happening in 1640. Good job?

I wonder, why do gods miracles get less and less impressive the more recording devices we have in the world

Originally posted by Jaecp

A written record of something happening in 1640. Good job?

Yes it is a good job you ignorant half wit, if you possessed an ounce of logical thought you would realize why it is such a good job. It shows God DOES heal amputees, which in turn shows that question to be an ignorant one, especially in the context it is asked always asked in, which is exactly the context soundsurfr asked it in, that context being that which assumes God has never healed an amputee.

I wonder, why do gods miracles get less and less impressive the more recording devices we have in the world

and I wonder why ignorant atheists such as yourself make such ridiculous comparisons.

A piece of paper from a few hundred years ago is enough to prove that someone had an amputated limb regenerated, is that what your saying?

Right,

Anyway,

So you think my comparison is ignorant? Why?

How do you explain the inverse proportion of camera's vs recorded miracles. God was going crazy by comparison, yet where are the confirmed miracles in london

1 camera per 14 people, insane! The average brit being caught on one 300 times a day. That was 3 years ago mind, the number has increased since, yet where are the miracles? The best we get is a story that someone had cancer in the 50's and lived? Cmon, is god camera shy?

Originally posted by Jaecp

A piece of paper from a few hundred years ago is enough to prove that someone had an amputated limb regenerated, is that what your saying?

Right,

Another logic error from our favorite ignorant half wit jaecp. You misrepresented my position (surprise surprise) A piece of paper from a few hundred years ago is enough to show the question "why won't God heal amputees" asked in its common context to be an ignorant one, which is exactly what soundsurf did when he asserted there will never be amputee cured and as soon as an amputee is cured to let him know. Even the website states the following:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

Prayer does not restore the severed limbs of amputees. You can electronically search through all the medical journals ever written -- there is no documented case of an amputated leg being restored spontaneously. And we know that God ignores the prayers of amputees through our own observations of the world around us. If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day.

What are we seeing here? It is not that God sometimes answers the prayers of amputees, and sometimes does not. Instead, in this situation there is a very clear line. God never answers the prayers of amputees. It would appear, to an unbiased observer, that God is singling out amputees and purposefully ignoring them.

Did you accurately represent my position yes or no?
what do you have to refute my original position you ignorant half wit?
can't wait for you to ignore this.

Anyway,

So you think my comparison is ignorant? Why?

Because you seem to think that lack of miracles caught on camera has something to do with the impressiveness of the miracle. You're judging the impressiveness of something by whether or not it is caught on camera, but you don't apply that stupid reasoning to other things. I guess we can conclude evolution is not impressive because it isn't caught on camera. Loving that self taught logic you half wit. Not to mention thinking God cares about whether or not you're impressed with His stuff or not. You're laughable.



How do you explain the inverse proportion of camera's vs recorded miracles. God was going crazy by comparison, yet where are the confirmed miracles in london
[/quote]
Comparison? really now? provide evidence for your stupid assertoin that 'God was going crazy by comparison.' Comparison to what? what are you comparing it to you ignorant half wit? provide evidence for your stupid assertion.

1 camera per 14 people, insane! The average brit being caught on one 300 times a day. That was 3 years ago mind, the number has increased since, yet where are the miracles? The best we get is a story that someone had cancer in the 50's and lived? Cmon, is god camera shy?

Listen half wit, I am not God so I don't know why He doesn't provide miracles on cameras, my guess is because God isn't concerened about whether or not people like you are impressed, not to mention that even if you were to see a miracle on camera you still wouldn't be impressed. Watch.

Miracle of the sun at Medjugorje

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlPHHl0AjZk

Originally posted by Spartacus

Why shouldn't the testimony be accepted? What makes the sources unreliable?

I've made a printout of Metacrock's essay on miracles, and I'm going to read it tonight and write a response. The response will answer your questions, most likely.

Originally posted by Metacrock

with increased medical knowledge there are fewer confirmed miracles, but that does not prove that all of them are just misunderstood natural healing. Bad logic.

see my miracle pages:

http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html

No, of course nothing can every prove that any claimed miracle is just a misunderstood natural healing, but so far there is only anecdotal evidence to support any miracle healing.

Originally posted by TD

Listen half wit, I am not God so I don't know why He doesn't provide miracles on cameras, my guess is because God isn't concerened about whether or not people like you are impressed, not to mention that even if you were to see a miracle on camera you still wouldn't be impressed. Watch.

Miracle of the sun at Medjugorje

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlPHHl0AjZk

Fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZRXv...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZwhf...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT_Ri...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N78Eg...eature=related

First one has a similar vertical line, lower duration and a different color. The variations have to do with the particular sensor. The third video here even has a black dot in one of the really bright lens flare things. This is common stuff man.

http://www.astronomyforum.net/ccd-im...-spot-sun.html

Notably post 4,

Originally posted by Post 4

The Sun is so bright - that if a camera exposes for the Sun, then everything else in the picture will just be black.
If the camera exposes in such a way that some detail appears in the image - like it has in yours - then the Sun is so bright that it 'overloads' the light sensitive chip in the camera - and in many cameras, the pixels in the area where the Sun would be, simply 'give-up', and don't register anything - hence the black spot.
The same principle applies to many video cameras too - in fact any digital camera (one that uses a light-sensitive chip, instead of film) can show this effect.
The same effect can sometimes happen to the light-sensitive cells in the human eye - and some people who have taken such photos have reported that they could also 'see' the black-spot.

There are many vids and images of this effect, all over the internet.
Unfortunately, some people try to read some significance into this, and ignorance of the process involved has led many to believe it may be something to do with either UFOs or religion.
Even worse - some people have even faked images and vids in order to promote their agendas.

It's a neat effect - but sadly is only that - an 'effect'

News! Machines can get blind spots staring at the sun too.

Originally posted by Jaecp

Fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZRXv...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZwhf...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT_Ri...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N78Eg...eature=related

First one has a similar vertical line, lower duration and a different color. The variations have to do with the particular sensor. The third video here even has a black dot in one of the really bright lens flare things. This is common stuff man.

http://www.astronomyforum.net/ccd-im...-spot-sun.html

Notably post 4,



News! Machines can get blind spots staring at the sun too.

no fail you ignorant half wit. You did exactly what I predicted you would do, not be impressed, which shows why God would be 'camera shy' because even if you were to see a miracle on camera you would not be impressed because you would be looking and favor an alternate explanation. Not to mention you're once again arguing with yourself since you're equating the impressiveness of something with it being on camera and a miracle is caught on camera and you're not impressed. Like I said in the last thread, you missed the point and refuted yourself like the predictable ignorant half wit you are. Man you are annoying.

What, really?

You thought a youtube video was a miracle, yet when that miracle is shown to be a graphical glitch of a digital camera and I give you four examples of this as well as a link + excerpt explaining how it works then I am the one missing the point?

Why should I be impressed with a youtube video claiming a glitch, an easily repeatable sensor glitch, is actually a miracle? Get real.

Originally posted by Jaecp

What, really?

You thought a youtube video was a miracle, yet when that miracle is shown to be a graphical glitch of a digital camera and I give you four examples of this as well as a link + excerpt explaining how it works then I am the one missing the point?

Why should I be impressed with a youtube video claiming a glitch, an easily repeatable sensor glitch, is actually a miracle? Get real.

No, you need to get real you ignorant half wit, what part of the following do you not understand? That video was a miracle claim just like any other miracle claim. Despite your claims, it was on video and you were not impressed and instead choose to look for and favor an alternate explanation. You did exactly what I predicted you would do, not be impressed, which shows why God would be 'camera shy' because even if you were to see a miracle on camera you would not be impressed because you would be looking and favor an alternate explanation. Not to mention you're once again arguing with yourself since you're equating the impressiveness of something with it being on camera and a miracle is caught on camera and you're not impressed. Like I said in the last thread, you missed the point and refuted yourself like the predictable ignorant half wit you are. Man you are annoying.