EVIDENCE

304 posts / 0 new
Last post
JoC's picture
How? How was I dishonest?

How? How was I dishonest?

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - How? How was I

JoC - How? How was I dishonest?

JoC - It was studied in 1971...Findings found that it was human cardiac tissue and had genetic makeup consistent with a man from 1st century Palestine.

There were no genetic results in the finding. Also there was no genetic testing done on the sample (which kind of explains why there were no genetic results listed in the findings).

Sheldon's picture
To be fair I suspect he was

To be fair I suspect he was simply accepting the fraud that was being offered, and hasn't remotely bothered to do even a cursory check of the facts. Even a prima facie check online is enough to see this doesn't come close to objective evidence of anything, let alone the existence of a deity.

Sheldon's picture
Have you read my link? http

Have you read my link? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/05/catholic-presents...

Here are some snippets...

"this story is from an anonymous source in the 17th century — almost 1,000 years after the alleged event was said to happen. In other words, it’s yet another fantastical story with no evidence."

"who is this “most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli”? I can’t find anything about him on Google, other than Catholics raving about this study. What exactly has he contributed to science to make him a “most illustrious scientist”? It seems like they’re building up an argument from authority, but this person certainly doesn’t seem eminent in his field — no one has even heard of him."

"I also find it suspicious that it was under “various ecclesiastical investigations” from 1574 – 1970. What exactly did they do? How can we be sure no one tampered with the evidence — if there was any to begin with?"

Any scientific study using this kind of cloak and dagger would be laughed at.

"How do we know what the scientists were studying had anything to do with this alleged miracle?"

Well quite...it goes on

"So the tests claim there is real flesh and blood in a Catholic museum. I can do tests and show you something is real flesh and blood, too. Does that mean you’d believe me if I said it came from a twinkie and orange juice?"

"That is, just because they have flesh and blood locked up somewhere doesn’t mean it was magically transformed by a doubting priest in 700 CE from a cracker and wine."

That's it in a nutshell....Have you looked at any sources outside of the RCC, and read any real criticisms of these claims? Also why do you assume the flesh was produced by a miracle, and focus on the test of the result, which doesn't remotely confirm the claim it was produced by a miracle? Lastly why so reluctant to test the Eucharist but then laud this fraud as proof? That''s a shocking double standard to me.

JoC's picture
I’ve explained why I don’t

I’ve explained why I don’t want the thing to be tested. You may read back on that.

You may however, look for photographs on this. Many of the analyses have been made on these photos as well.

Sheldon's picture
I don't care why you don't

I don't care why you don't want it tested, I asked for objective evidence for the existence of a deity, not excuses why you think you can't provide any.

"You may however, look for photographs on this. Many of the analyses have been made on these photos as well."

Go back through the thread and read the responses, the photographs and the "testing" are irrelevant, as they don't evidence the provenance of the tissue. If you can show objective evidence that this tissue transformed from wafer and wine then do so, but even the RCC hasn't tried to offer this, just the bare claim from a monk centuries ago. Then you would need to offer objective evidence that this evidenced the existence of a deity. So far you have made a claim for miracle, and offered test results showing the Vatican have some human tissue and blood, so what?

Sheldon's picture
"I’ve explained why I don’t

"I’ve explained why I don’t want the thing to be tested. You may read back on that."

Then don't pretend it's objective evidence for the existence of a deity, or a miracle. You can't have it both ways, claiming evidence but then claiming you don;t want it properly tested.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - It was studied in 1971.

JoC - It was studied in 1971. This eucharistic miracle supposedly happened in the 8th century.

Findings found that it was human cardiac tissue and had genetic makeup consistent with a man from 1st century Palestine.

(beep beep): that is my skeptic alarm: BULLSHIT!

edit: beaten by Algebe

Sheldon's picture
" all the scientific

" all the scientific examinations since the event have served to establish nothing more than that the objects in question are real human flesh and blood. The claim that they were once bread and wine and that there was a miraculous transubstantiation is just that, a claim by a priest 1300 years ago with no support whatsoever."

Furthermore if the transubstantiation is believed then this flesh would be divine, and a simple DNA test would show unequivocally the donor had no biological father. I wouldn't trust the RCC to be objective here given it's track record, but their reluctance to proceed speaks volumes.

However we digress, in this thread a claim for a miracle is just that, a claim, and not objective evidence as requested at the start.

Edit: A good objective and open minded refutation of the claimed miracle here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/05/catholic-presents...

Pretty much spot on.

Sheldon's picture
No it they didn't, and no it

No they didn't, and no it doesn't, I warned you about Hitchens's razor.

Now if you claim transubstantiation is true, then this is a doddle to test, the RCC could do it in any one of millions of their churches worldwide virtually any day of the week, no? I'm looking at the news now, and see nothing about a scientific validation of this claim? Can you link any published scientific papers, in a worthy peer reviewed journal that evidences your claim? I stated at the start I was looking for objective evidence, and since you're trying to make a claim that can be easily tested empirically then emphatic and irrefutable scientific evidence would be a reasonable and objective expectation here.

JoC's picture
I’m not at all asserting

I’m not at all asserting anything without proof.

You may look for those photos and links yourself. I believe I’ve mentioned some of them in the thread already. If not, google is your friend.

Sheldon's picture
It's your claim, so you must

It's your claim, so you must evidence it. I'm not researching this for you.

1. The evidence that the rcc have some human tissue is meaningless unless its provenance can also be objectively evidenced.
2. You still have all your work before you as all the RRC have offered is a claim from a monk that is 800 years old and can't be tested. The fact they can confirm human tissue is human tissue tells us nothing.

Sheldon's picture
"Define "evidence". Does it

"Define "evidence". Does it need to be scientific? Can it be Philiosophical? It it needs to be material, does it need to be God himself or a traces of God are permited?"

That's not for me to say, I am not making any claims. I would be prepared to go this far, that the evidence supplied must be commensurate to claim and objectively verifiable.

JoC's picture
Actually, since you’re the

Actually, since you’re the one asking for evidence, you do need to be the one to say.

Anyway, another pc of Philosophical evidence for God’s existence —> see Aquinas 5 ways. If they’ve been debunked (as I’m sure you’ll claim) please give me a link. I’ll gladly read it.

Sheldon's picture
I asked for objective

I asked for objective evidence. This is not objective evidence, it is a collection of arguments. If you want to post them be my guest, I'm not looking for them for you though. And yes, theyve been thoroughly debunked. They're not very compelling to any objective view.

JoC's picture
Can you show me how they're

Can you show me how they're debunked? A link or article will suffice. Thanks!

Sheldon's picture
Google it, this thread is for

Google it, this thread is for objective evidence FOR the existence of a deity. Though unsurprisingly all we have had is a string of anecdotal claims for miracles, and common logical fallacies.

Kataclismic's picture
JoC,

JoC,

Are you seriously this ignorant? If I say there's a watch in my pocket it doesn't make any sense for me to ask you what evidence you would accept for it; I just pull a watch out of my pocket.

The problem is you have already convinced yourself without evidence, which leaves you absent in the knowledge of what would qualify as evidence.

JoC's picture
I've actually been on a

I've actually been on a search for evidence around mid last year and have been convinced by the evidence that I see. So I ask you, what kind of evidence are you looking for?

Historical? Scientific? Philosophical? Personal experience (I don't have much of this that's convincing)? Because I can show certain evidence but if you won't accept them anyway, it's pretty futile on my part.

Sapporo's picture
For me, the Abrahamic god has

For me, the Abrahamic god has been proved false by past moral absence. In addition, I believe that a moral god would not care if I believe in its existence - the whole question of trying to "prove" god is an empty exercise for me.

Kataclismic's picture
Exactly. You have to convince

JoC,

Exactly. You have to convince yourself that you have evidence because there isn't any. Telling me that you are sure it is evidence doesn't make it evidence, it makes it obvious that you have to declare things as evidence to convince yourself.

You must understand the scientific method to understand what would qualify as evidence. Then you will understand that you don't have any and this conversation will be over.

JoC's picture
Why does it need to be the

Why does it need to be the scientific method?

Kataclismic's picture
Because your method of

Because your method for determining fact from fiction is full of flaws.

Sheldon's picture
We're 4 pages in, so I'm a

We're 4 pages in, so I'm a little puzzled what you're waiting for? Present the best evidence you have. I already told you what the standard was, objective evidence. Why did you waste everyone's time with a subjective claim for a miracle that was centuries old and unfalsifiable if you have convincing evidence?

"Because I can show certain evidence but if you won't accept them anyway, it's pretty futile on my part."

That doesn't sound like christianity to me, and you obliged to try and save us? If you have convincing objective evidence why would anyone reject it? Though I must say your standard so far suggests you don't know what objective evidence is.

LogicForTW's picture
Setting aside the "from bread

Setting aside the "from bread and water" part of it and just focusing on the "it has not decayed!"

It would seem to me, if the church had something that points to a miracle, they would be falling all over themselves to finally be able to point to it in a way that was a near bullet proof from objection as possible.

They could arrange testing done on this "miraculous anti decay" property with them watching every step of the test. So it does not decay? How about if we take the stuff out of the glass container, put it in a warm humid environment with normal decay related bacteria and cultures near it. Just speeding up the normal decay process greatly, so we can get answer on the anti decay properties within a few hours/days? Whole thing can be done very carefully and with the church watching every step. Live stream the test on the web so anyone in the world can watch, with multiple well known scientist known to be skeptical towards god present. If it truly is magical and cannot decay we would all know in a few days and the proof would be in the high definition uninterrupted live stream with multiple well respected scientist on both sides.

"But it is holy, it would be religious sacrilege!" Seems like a real convenient excuse, especially if they did allow the test to go in this manner they would win quite possibly millions of converts to their particular religion. (Think of all the souls saved from damnation!)

faith in God follower's picture
The teleological argument

The teleological argument this shows that there appears to be a universe that is designed. So I attribute that to there being A GOD; Further the addition of the 1st century sage Jesus Christ. Who through his miracles and life death and resurrection, prove to me that he was God. Our Calendar that we currently use goes back to Jesus Life. And when you look around you see in art and music and scenery the oceans and then man and women. I don`t think this came from non-design or by naturalistic means. How can you explain consciousness and the brain leading up to the mind. So I accept the top down premise for a Deity; God who is order instead of just disorder and randomness that naturalist espouse.

Sheldon's picture
The title of the OP isn't

The title of the OP isn't arguments, and it isn't opinions, it's EVIDENCE. So this....

The teleological argument this shows that there appears to be a universe that is designed. So I attribute that to there being A GOD;

...is irrelevant. That aside it's an appalling argument that attempts to define a deity into existence, makes flat out assumptions, and, is based on a premise that would also need to be objectively verified, namely that the universe is fine tuned, physicists and cosmologists and the wider scientific world don't share your opinion.
--------------------------
"Further the addition of the 1st century sage Jesus Christ. Who through his miracles and life death and resurrection, prove to me that he was God. "

No evidence there at all, just a succession of claims. Do you even know what objective evidence is?
------------------------------
" I don`t think this came from non-design or by naturalistic means. "

Then demonstrate some evidence Billy, and stop making endless claims as if they represent objective evidence.
------------------------
"How can you explain"

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, that's a common logical fallacy, it's an appeal to ignorance, and I said right at the get go I'd dump all over these. Go away and learn the difference between an argument and objective evidence, then learn what it means when an argument is based on a logical fallacy. It's tedious to have to keep explaining basic principles like common logical fallacies to you, this is a debate forum, not a pulpit. If you want to preach BILLY, take it where it will be appreciated.

faith in God follower's picture
Well maybe you don`t

Well maybe you don`t understand my reply to your post I gave arguments for evidence in talking about the brain and other criteria. So I guess you have no answer to my statement on conscience what is it and how it functions? you like others on this web like to give ad hominem attacks, please refrain from this. Just deal with the subjects at hand and leave all the other garbage behind .thanks Billy1

Sheldon's picture
"Well maybe you don`t

"Well maybe you don`t understand my reply"

I did and do, hence my response above. As I said, you don't know the difference between objective evidence and an argument. Just as you seem unaware of the consequences of basing an argument on logical fallacies. You also seem not to know what common logical fallacies are, the clue however is in the name.

"So I guess you have no answer to my statement"

Au contraire, and I have given it a second time for you, despite your unabashed duplicity.

"you like others on this web like to give ad hominem attacks,"

Nonsense, nothing in my post is ad hominem, another unabashed lie, or more likely you don't know what ad hominem means.

"Just deal with the subjects at hand and leave all the other garbage behind "

Ahahahahahhahahahahhaha, good one Billy, now have you any objective evidence for a deity? Only that *IS* the subject at hand, and it is *YOU* who is posting garbage that has nothing to do with that. You haven't offered a single cogent word in response to anything I wrote, quelle surprise, so this is another irony overload.

Diotrephes's picture
agnostic believer,

agnostic believer,

If Yeshua was still wiggling on the cross you might have a point. After all, a thousand years is just a day to him, right? But since he isn't you're coming across as just another superstitious twit who believes in silly ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tales. How insane do you have to be to think that a homicidal maniac zombie will save you from your "sins"?

As it says in Titus 1:13-14 (NKJV) = "13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth."

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.