Author Topic: Catholic Church "Miracles" (Read 6774 times)

aitm · « **Reply #360 on:** March 13, 2021, 08:41:02 AM »

Quote from: Paolo on March 13, 2021, 02:51:46 AM

I misspoke. I should have said ''how do you justify that an intact tongue is nonsense''?

Don’t think I said an “intact” tongue is nonsense, I do not jump from A to Z and claim it is a sign from a god. Of all the things a god could do, and the best he can offer is an intact tongue that is relatively unknown of? Not impressed with such a pitiful performance.

Paolo · « **Reply #361 on:** March 18, 2021, 02:15:58 AM »

Quote from: SGOS on March 12, 2021, 10:03:27 AM

No. They are both true.

How so?

SGOS · « **Reply #362 on:** March 18, 2021, 08:21:40 AM »

SGOS: No. They are both true.

Quote from: Paolo on March 18, 2021, 02:15:58 AM

How so?

You seem to think your two statements way back are opposites and contradictory, but I won't bother explaining it to you, because I'm getting tired of this. If you believe they are opposites, explain to yourself why you think they are. You are also free to amuse yourself by explaining why one of the statements of your concern is not true if you wish. You can formulate your own beliefs on your own. Maybe you will get it right or maybe not. That's what happens sometimes, but at least you can own it.

Hydra009 · « **Reply #363 on:** March 18, 2021, 02:49:50 PM »

Quote from: Paolo on March 12, 2021, 09:55:33 AM

That is an interesting discussion. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''? But wasn't he who also said that ''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''?

So was he, in your opinion, contradicting himself?

How is the Sagan standard (aka the basic burden of proof and the heart of skepticism) allegedly contradicted by the statement that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? (Sagan is criticizing the fallacious argument from ignorance - "I've never been to Australia, therefore Australia does not exist")

If for example, I were to claim that I went out walking and saw a dragon, should you accept my claim at face value? If you said that you were out at about the same time and place and didn't see a dragon, and I retorted that just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, would that convince you that dragons are real and that I saw one?

SGOS · « **Reply #364 on:** March 18, 2021, 03:39:03 PM »

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 18, 2021, 02:49:50 PM

How is the Sagan standard (aka the basic burden of proof and the heart of skepticism) allegedly contradicted by the statement that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? (Sagan is criticizing the fallacious argument from ignorance - "I've never been to Australia, therefore Australia does not exist")

If for example, I were to claim that I went out walking and saw a dragon, should you accept my claim that at face value? If you said that you were out at about the same time and place and didn't see a dragon, and I retorted that just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, would that convince you that dragons are real and that I saw one?

I think he is saying that...

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
and
''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''

are mutually exclusive, which would make one of them false and a contradiction.

The problem is they are both true, not mutually exclusive, not opposites, and related only through half of a thought. I think he would like to believe the absence of evidence justifies believing a pickled tongue belongs to St Francis. Ideally, it would be the "extraordinary evidence" he seeks to justify Catholic claims about the tongue.

Hydra009 · « **Reply #365 on:** March 18, 2021, 04:35:32 PM »

Quote

I think he would like to believe the absence of evidence justifies believing a pickled tongue belongs to St Francis. Ideally, it would be the "extraordinary evidence" he seeks to justify Catholic claims about the tongue.

If that's the case, what's he doing wasting his time chatting us up about it?? I don't know jack about St Francis or tongue preservation or the process of biological decay.

Take it to the press, take it to scientific organizations, take it to the James Randi foundation. If genuine, it would make headlines, baffle scientists, and win a ton of money. After winning fame and fortune, then he can talk to us at his leisure. If verified, I'd have no choice but to side with the experts and concede at the very least to a medical anomaly. Bring more in, and I'd have to change my perspective even further, especially if these anomalies are closely associated with only one religion.

Fame and fortune and crow-eating from skeptics await. What's the holdup?

SGOS · « **Reply #366 on:** March 18, 2021, 05:11:41 PM »

Paolo · « **Reply #367 on:** March 18, 2021, 11:00:10 PM »

Quote from: SGOS on March 18, 2021, 03:39:03 PM

I think he is saying that...

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
and
''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''

are mutually exclusive, which would make one of them false and a contradiction.

The problem is they are both true, not mutually exclusive, not opposites, and related only through half of a thought. I think he would like to believe the absence of evidence justifies believing a pickled tongue belongs to St Francis. Ideally, it would be the "extraordinary evidence" he seeks to justify Catholic claims about the tongue.

No, it is much more simple than that. The first represents total abandonment of skepticism; the second demands total devotion to it. At least at first glance, that's my interpretation.

And this is another question entirely. It has nothing to do with the question posed in the op.

Hydra009 · « **Reply #368 on:** March 19, 2021, 02:49:39 AM »

Quote from: Paolo on March 18, 2021, 11:00:10 PM

No, it is much more simple than that. The first represents total abandonment of skepticism; the second demands total devotion to it. At least at first glance, that's my interpretation.

That's a very incorrect interpretation. The first is a counter to the argument from ignorance (a fallacy and essentially pseudoskepticism), while the second is an affirmation of skepticism and the burden of proof. In both cases, his stance is against dogmatism.

Hydra009 · « **Reply #369 on:** March 19, 2021, 03:10:09 AM »

Also, it's really hard to get an accurate understanding of someone's stance from a measly couple soundbites. I recommend you check out a clip or three from Sagan's Cosmos tv show. It won't take long and will yield an excellent primer on scientific skepticism in a very clear and consice way.

Paolo · « **Reply #370 on:** **Today** at 10:43:08 AM »

Quote from: Simon Moon on December 10, 2020, 03:31:07 PM

That is not how this logic, evidence, and rationality thing works.

It is not up to skeptics to 'disprove' any such claim, it is up to those making the claim to provide their case (demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and reasoned argument) for their claim.

Until those making the claim that this 'relic' is indeed: tongue tissue, ancient, was dug up after a body decomposed, belonged to 'St Anthony', and, the only way it could have survived intact for so long is a 'miracle', I have no justification to accept the claim.

NEXT...

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN A SKEPTIC OR ATHEIST COULD NOT HAVE ADDRESSED OR REFUTED THE CLAIM!! AN ARTICLE COULD HAVE EXISTED FOR ALL YOU KNOW. THIS WAS SIMPLY A QUESTION, NOT A 'TRAP'!!!

I am sorry I was misunderstood.

News:

Author Topic: Catholic Church "Miracles" (Read 6774 times)

aitm

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"

Paolo

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"

SGOS

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"

Hydra009

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"

SGOS

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"

Hydra009

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"

SGOS

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"

Paolo

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"

Hydra009

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"

Hydra009

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"

Paolo

Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"