The God of Convenience

[Esquilax]

Okay. So you won't accept a miracle just because doctors and scientists can find no natural explanation and these people have prayed for healing from God, and have been healed, because you see no proof that it was a miracle.

No, I'm saying that your claim that these purported miracles have been scientifically verified is bunk, because what's really happening is that a lack of results is being spun into results that indicate god, which they are not. "No answers," is not synonymous with "the answer is god." No answers means we have no answers, and how dare the catholic church leap immediately from there to this unverified nonsense?

Therefore, you don't accept the existence of Plato and Soccrates, or scads of other ancient figures and events, or miracles at all.

You need to quit it with the equivocations, because they are terribly dishonest. I accept the existence of Plato because we have his writings, his Academy, and primary sources that are contemporary with his existence. I accept the existence of Socrates for similar reasons. In short, I do have evidence for their existence, whereas we've both already established that the catholic church "tests" for miracles by first ascertaining that there is no evidence for their particular claim.

I've seen you arguing this same point with Pickup, but when you make comparisons between Plato and Jesus you're inherently equivocating, because we have no primary sources that are contemporary with Jesus' existence. Not one. When you say that Jesus preached at this or that temple, you're not getting that information from anyone that knew him, you're getting it from second hand stories written down at least a few decades after his death. It's nowhere near the same kind of confirmation, and I think you know that, which is why you're grasping at straws the way you are, trying to turn this around onto us to cover for your own lack of information.

Gee. You mean that they have to convince some atheists that there is a supernatural explanation for a miracle? I'm sure that his foundation is the expert in that area.

First of all, sarcasm is not a rebuttal.

Second of all, you started off by saying all us atheists would just dismiss all miracle claims out of hand. Don't then get all snarky when I point you to a group that seriously entertains these claims and puts their own money up for grabs in the bargain. It's your claim that's wrong, and it's not my problem that it's so easy to disprove.

Thirdly, did you actually do any research at all into the foundation's testing methodology, or the composition of the group, before you decided that it was wrong? Any tests they do are thoroughly negotiated, with the claimant themselves, before the test takes place. This isn't just some unfair imposition, it's a test that the claimants both agree to, and get to influence. That includes the judging criteria, of which Randi is not always a member, and in fact will recuse himself should the possibility of bias be hinted at. It's not just some bunch of atheists naysaying everything, as you wish to categorize it as, not that you've actually done any research that would enable you to make an informed conclusion like that, of course.