Ah, I see what the stumbling block is. It’s not that you haven’t provided any support, it’s that the support you have provided is simply bad. I’d belabor this point, but I’m not sure why I should expend the effort when you don’t seem willing to even engage me when I do post substantial criticism of your views.
This is, essentially, what you have been doing with all the people criticizing your views in this thread (and the other one).
This is not the truth. The truth is that you have an inadequate grasp of logic and reasoning and this has been shown to you over and over again. You wish your assertions to be taken at face value and when they aren’t, you get huffy.
On top of several other interesting views, GEEPERS seems to have a very odd, and incorrect, idea of how evidence and authority actually work.
The fact alone that a “respected doctor” says something happened doesn’t mean squat. Either the evidence will bear the story out, or it won’t. Likewise, the fact that some conference is taking place doesn’t, by itself, mean anything. Either you can provide evidence, or you can’t.
And “I swear this happened,” is evidence, but not convincing evidence.
Of course, GEEPERS also apparently believes in a vast conspiracy in the medical community to keep this information out of our hands, so who knows.
Not to get in the way of you feeling persecuted or what have you, but what do you think the words “… you also…” signify?
A) In addition to this one example, there are others.
B) Evil lying atheist!!!
C) Evil lying atheist!!!
D) Evil lying atheist!!!
How odd. Here I thought that medical evidence was recorded in methodologically sound studies and debated in peer reviewed literature. Science by Conference, nifty. Of course, again you don’t understand what “intellectually dishonest” mean. Saying that someone who doesn’t publish but instead goes to a pseudo-scientific conference is a quack. Sorry. You don’t see oncologists having to go to conferences on the mere existence of cancer, now do you?
Mmm hmm. Atheists wouldn’t want to win the Nobel Prize for proving magical healing. Because, um, Atheists!!!
I know, that lack of perspicacity is why it’s been so hard to explain to you what evidence needs to be in order to support a scientific claim.
This reminds me, a decade or so ago (holy crap, it might be almost two decades ago now!), I was big on alien abduction. I thought it was taking place and it was only a matter of time before the government revealed all.
John Mack, a respected Psychiatrist, wrote a book on alien abductions. Here it was, a legitimate expert, who was (at least in my teenage mind) giving credence to the whole phenomenon. Even though I had read his book, I took him as an expert who believed that aliens were abducting people*. The testimony in his book, backed by this expert, was enough for me to be fully confident in my beliefs. It was only later, after reading a few skeptical books (most notably Michael Shermer’s book) that I realized that I was making some fundamental errors in reasoning.
And if the atheists didn’t want to, I’m sure there are one or two Christians who might like to. Oh, if only the evil atheist Nobel Committee wasn’t refusing to consider their evidence!
Instead, I hear that this year they’re giving the prize for Medicine to a Local Mom who has discovered an amazing cure for wrinkled teeth that the medical community doesn’t want you to know about.
Is there any good reason for thinking people to believe in events and stories about events with a complete lack of evidence.
There’s no good reason to believe the Bible is historically accurate and lots of good reasons to doubt that it is. More importantly , whether it’s accurate or not doesn’t even matter. It has zero to do with any value the Bible has
If you had bothered to look at the links, you would see scanned images of the medical documentation such as before and after hearing test results. What more do you freaking want? Please explain in detail why this does not qualify as “evidence”. Apparently medical documentation is not evidence. LOL
The reason why has been explained to you repeatedly.
Even if we assume that it’s not a currently-unexplainable phenomena of spontaneous healing and do apply your God of the Gaps fallacy, that still doesn’t tell us which supernatural entity is to blame. Okay, so humans can be healed by magic. This just proves what I’ve been saying all along, which is that J.R. “Bob” Dobbs is the only true path to slack and financial security.
a) The images of the ‘before and after’ hearing test results are the exact same image!
b) there is a year and a few months between the two tests and what, IMHO, is a modest improvement in hearing - could that be just natural? how do you prove the ‘prayer’ had anything to do with it?
c) for the other images - they appear to be stuff written in chinese - do you read chinese? there is no analysis here that makes this any kind of improvement.
In short - this evidence is bunk - period - end of story -
Do you have any cites for this evidence that is not on a ‘evidence for faith healing’ web site? If this were honest results, it would be available elsewhere.
So you will only accept a miracle if it can be repeated consistently and monitored by scientific means? Obviously, you don’t even understand the definition of a miracle.
I explained clearly exactly why you don’t see these miracle stories published very often. Care to address that specifically, or will u keep spewing more condescending nonsense?
I provided the medical documentation. If you refuse to accept reality, that’s your problem. Again, you have no basis for your claim that these doctors are quacks and this is a pseduo-science conference. Go attend it first, and then maybe your arguments can have more credibility. You could personally hear the lectures of this guy:
Frans J. Cronje, is a medical doctor specialized in diving, hyperbaric and aerospace medicine. He received both his medical degree and a Master’s of Science degree in Aerospace Medicine from the University of Pretoria cum laude in 1991 and 1997 respectively.
Sounds like quite an educated intelligent man to me.
Yes, that’s how epistemology works. And while I certainly understand the definition of “miracle”, it’s clear that you do not understand the definition of “science”.
Yet again, you explained nothing, you made baseless claims which were largely incoherent. And of course, much like your other errors about my statements, you’re wrong that I didn’t address your claims. I did.
Yes, I do. I explained why to you. As always, you either neglected to read, or to understand, the issue. As for your Appeal to Authority fallacy, it’s not particularly shocking.
It’s only science if you can replicate it, I figure, so a scientist with a bunch of anecdotes isn’t really any more impressive than any random mope with a bunch of anecdotes.
When someone comes up with a MRI machine (i.e. Miracle Replication and Inducement) that can show a success rate better than existing treatments, then I’ll be suitably impressed.
He’s right. :smack: The numbers say there are different hearing numbers, but the images are the same. This kind of sloppiness doesn’t do much for your case, GEEPERS.
Right. This is why people ask for scientifically reviewed evidence.
The monitoring part is not an unreasonable request. It’s how we evaluate cause and effect.
No, you didn’t. You offered a made-up bullshit excuse about “secular atheist publications” suppressing them, nevermind that there aren’t a lot of those and major medical journals are not controlled by atheists. You yourself have pointed out that atheists are a small minority, so the idea that atheists are covering up all the evidence doesn’t work very well.
‘Miracle’ is generally in the eye of the beholder - unexpected events happen - when they are good (cancer remission, surviving a bullet to the brain, etc) we call them ‘miracles’
Modern Medicine has made alot of miracles possible.
But being a ‘miracle’ does not mean it was ‘divinely’ caused - and truth is, many ‘miracles’ that happen may not have good explanations - but the data from those events (when captured in an appropriate and meaningful way) - furhter the scientific study of them such that Medical science can, one day, explain them and replicate them.
Your link indicates that the first test was done on April 25 2000.
The average hearing ability: Right 117dB, Left 120dB
The second test was done on July 3 2001
The average hearing ability: Right 78dB, Left 111dB
From your link:
Since I don’t speak Korean, I can’t really make out the words v sentences part.
In any event, what we see here is that someone got marginally better hearing (and I’ll be charitable) and marginally better at talking over the course of a year. Since the test was not taken directly before the prayer nor was one taken directly after the prayer, I fail to see the reason to link the prayer with the events. Especially since her hearing only improved ‘to some extent’. If it’s a miracle, why not all the way? Further, where has Jaerock Lee submitted this miraculous healing powers to peer review?
Oh yeah, and that fallacy you’re using, GEEP, is either cum hoc or post hoc, depending on whether you’re claiming that two events proximal or sequential order serves as proof of causation.
P.S. Korea is also a country where people routinely believe that running a fan in a room with closed doors and windows will fucking kill you, and they have newspaper articles and doctors who speak to this ‘fact’ all the time.
Speaking objectively, how good is this woman’s hearing now? I don’t know much about this, but I thought that normally, hearing impairments are measured in decibels and hearing sensitivity was measured in hertz, so I am not sure how to evaluate how well this woman can hear.