Why does science always upstage God?

[Angrboda]

The saints proof has two flaws. First, it's circular. It assumes that the feats of the saints stem from God and therefore are evidence of God. But you don't know that their feats stem from God so it isn't evidence of God. The second is statistical. There are always going to be exceptional people. That's an artifact of random distribution. You're arguing their exceptionalism requires an explanation beyond random chance when you haven't shown that it does.

[Ahriman]

The saints proof has two flaws.  First, it's circular.  It assumes that the feats of the saints stem from God and therefore are evidence of God.  But you don't know that their feats stem from God so it isn't evidence of God.  The second is statistical.  There are always going to be exceptional people.  That's an artifact of random distribution.  You're arguing their exceptionalism requires an explanation beyond random chance when you haven't shown that it does.

How do you figure? Random distribution? What even is that?

[Mashmont]

The saints proof has two flaws.  First, it's circular.  It assumes that the feats of the saints stem from God and therefore are evidence of God.  But you don't know that their feats stem from God so it isn't evidence of God.  The second is statistical.  There are always going to be exceptional people.  That's an artifact of random distribution.  You're arguing their exceptionalism requires an explanation beyond random chance when you haven't shown that it does.

These saints say their feats stem from God, and I believe them.

I have seen this in others and experienced it myself.   When you do things in God's service,  you get a super-human energy and commitment level.  You do things that seem impossible.

This is why 80-year-old nuns of the Sisters of Charity can do backbreaking work of caring for the poor all day every day.

[Angrboda]

The saints proof has two flaws.  First, it's circular.  It assumes that the feats of the saints stem from God and therefore are evidence of God.  But you don't know that their feats stem from God so it isn't evidence of God.  The second is statistical.  There are always going to be exceptional people.  That's an artifact of random distribution.  You're arguing their exceptionalism requires an explanation beyond random chance when you haven't shown that it does.

These saints say their feats stem from God, and I believe them.

I have seen this in others and experienced it myself.   When you do things in God's service,  you get a super-human energy and commitment level.  You do things that seem impossible.

This is why 80-year-old nuns of the Sisters of Charity can do backbreaking work of caring for the poor all day every day.

Yeah, so? It still doesn't show that these feats come from God. You believing their claims and their claims themselves are evidence of nothing.

---

The saints proof has two flaws.  First, it's circular.  It assumes that the feats of the saints stem from God and therefore are evidence of God.  But you don't know that their feats stem from God so it isn't evidence of God.  The second is statistical.  There are always going to be exceptional people.  That's an artifact of random distribution.  You're arguing their exceptionalism requires an explanation beyond random chance when you haven't shown that it does.

How do you figure? Random distribution? What even is that?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

She raised hundreds of millions of dollars to ostensibly help the poor. Virtually none of the money was spent to help the poor. It sat in the Vatican Bank.

Boru

Why would people send money to a Vatican bank instead of to the Sisters of Charity?   But assuming this is so, and assuming it was mismanaged by a few bad people,  I would say two things.  1)  Fallible humans do bad things sometimes, and they exist in every organization.  2) How do you make the leap that bringing in money to the Vatican is a prerequisite for Sainthood, even through this example?

People sent money - lots and lots of money - to the Sisters of Charity, believing that it would pay for things like food and medicine for the poor (it didn’t). Teresa was the one who shipped the funds to Rome, because she had a fetish for watching people suffer.

Boru

[Mashmont]

These saints say their feats stem from God, and I believe them.

I have seen this in others and experienced it myself.   When you do things in God's service,  you get a super-human energy and commitment level.  You do things that seem impossible.

This is why 80-year-old nuns of the Sisters of Charity can do backbreaking work of caring for the poor all day every day.

Yeah, so?  It still doesn't show that these feats come from God.  You believing their claims and their claims themselves are evidence of nothing.

---

How do you figure? Random distribution? What even is that?

Generally good people are wise people.  Canonized saints are especially good people,  so therefore they are especially wise people.  These people are especially devoted to God and to the Catholic Church.  Therefore we can deduce it is wise to be devoted to God and the Catholic Church.  

That's my "good fruits" proof of God.

Do atheists have a counterpart to the canonized saints?, ie,  atheists who lived among the people they served and made a huge difference to society?  Who are the "good fruits" atheists?

[Ahriman]

wise and good do not always go together.

[Mashmont]

wise and good do not always go together.

Ergo, I used the modifer "generally".

[brewer]

Especially good and wise atheists exist, no god needed. Claiming a motivation = existence of god, rubbish. God is nothing more than a mental construct.

[Ahriman]

Especially good and wise atheists exist, no god needed. Claiming a motivation = existence of god, rubbish. God is nothing more than a mental construct.

God is obviously not a mental construct, not sure how you could even think that.