Is It "Science" That Documents Miracles? In Reality, No, Although It Provides Supportive Evidence

My Ri 21 hrs · I see what human beings have done, which is move from biological to psychological and there they have invented this idea that eventually you will come to God. When a human being sees the falseness of it, actually, not theoretically, then it’s finished. Th Go So says the atheist Reply Share 20h JoMcN Th Go That’s interesting you say that. If a person doesn’t believe in life after death, does that make them an atheist? The reason I ask that is because of the 4,000 active religions currently practiced world wide, and the 10’s of thousands of documented ancient, they all have the exact thing in common. Life after death. So does an atheist not believe in God, or do they not believe in life after death? Because it appears believing in God is merely a mechanism to offer us immortality. Reply Share 18h Mark Rego Monteiro Jo Mc Your making non-sequitors. Having "Life after death" in common is one detail, belief in God is another, no matter how much you want to reduce them on impulse, and to a physicalist mechanism related to some angle of "immortality." I´ve noticed how it is important to lay the intellectual groundwork to illuminate the necessary and suffiient assumptions that go around in this discussion. And often in circles. Ah, but I did that in my comment above, addressing the post´s own unfounded assertions that God is merely a psychological construct. I cited one scientific fact, and one empirical fact that straddles "science," i.e. scientific philosophy, and the psychosocial symbol-related studies (that actually accounts for "science" itself). The multidisciplinary empirical fact is that of medically attested, medically impossible healings with spiritual religious testimony. And that in an overwhelming number of cases involves reference to God, or its equivalent. Reply Share 18h J Mc Mark Rego Monteiro I really have no choice but to notice the fact that every organized religious belief in God, current or past, also offers a mechanism for immortality in the bargain. One has to question then if we worship God, or a mechanism for immortality that calms our primordial fears suggesting a psychological phenomenon. The consistency of immortality in the belief systems betrays the psychological need driving it. There are also testimonies of UFO abductions and Bigfoot sightings, I’m not sure either can be called empirical or scientific evidence supporting either. Reply Share 18hEdited Mark Rego Monteiro Jo Mc It´s important for a person to notice what they want, in general or in specifics. They can pose any philosophical questions that they want. A belief in God, and its association with immortality, and any "mechanism" of that association, are different conceptual labels. "One" doesn´t "have to do" anything. If someone is interested in studying such conceptual entities and their interrelatedness, including a notion of "primordial fears", they can feel free to investigate, or even to speculate, as philosophical tools, like truth being academically agreed to be defined as logical coherence and correspondence to reality, operate. Fear is psychological, however it is not a psychological need, nor can a person leap to the conclusion that any psychological need is "betrayed." Ideological antagonisms don´t reign outside anti-theist clubhouses. Fear, however, is not an isolated human psychological phenomenon. It is an emotion. We might reflect, before checking with specialists, what various emotions and psychological needs exist. Love is at least in part an emotion, or perhaps a psychological need. That´s a good example of one reason how ideological blinders limit someone´s philosophical reasoning. Yet, in any event, that said, a person can move ahead, as Freud did in his reductionist empirical way. He interpreted God reductionistically by thinking that God was limited to a projection of a person´s Father figure. As if people could never differentiate among and between each specific relationship. They can. That´s one thing psychotherapy, now incredibly diverse, offers brilliantly after Freud´s proteges developed a wide range of alternative frameworks. Jung advanced by acknowledging additional orientations, including the Higher Self that he later based on Jesus Christ. Transpersonal psychology was formulated, perhaps by the non-theist Abe Maslow. Otto Rank identified emotional activity very dynamically, which influenced Carl Rogers, who rejected theism until later in his life and career. Rogers´ did groundbreaking work with his person-centered approach, and he mentored M Rosenberg, who applied his psychotherapeutic training to developing Non-Violent Communication. In his groundbreaking book, Rosenberg lists "intrigue" as one of a variety of human emotions. Among the needs, he suggests one category as spiritual communion, including the need of "harmony." Suddenly, the unwavering tunnel vision of immortality encompassing all of the God concept and "betraying" psychological primal fear is actually still reductionist and false equivalency without having shown any knowledge of actual empirical psychological, and anthropological, and comparative religious, for that matter, material at all on your part. And then you comment about "testimonies." Does your comment actual address the issue? You attempt to cite two phenomena, Bigfoot and UFOs that have specific contexts, associated with skepticism by materialist ideologues. That´s an associative "smear" fallacy, that you show no sense of awareness of. God, religion, and immortality are hardly even limited in context as phenomena. In fact, the overemphasis on legitimate "science" studying material reality makes that kind of ideological presumption and philosophical fallacy understandable. Medically attested, medically impossible healing accompanied by spiritual-religious testimony doesn´t get thrown in the atheist clubhouse file marked "Bigfoot" and "UFOs." It gets associated with Comparative Religious Studies that is multidisciplinary in nature. Actually, Harvard´s psychiatrist John Mack picked up the UFO file and studied it that I know of. He observed that environmental awareness, or the lack thereof, is a major feature. Meanwhile, ideological materialists deserve a dressing down, a deconstruction, that is in fact a demystification. "Science" itself, the reference base for ideological materialism, is in fact actually scientific philosophy, having originally been called scientific "natural philosophy." Scientific philosophy is itself a philosophical subdiscipline, with philosophy itself the reference to the criteria for multidisciplinary truth in logical coherence and correspondence to reality. Thus, medically attested, medically impossible healings, like Marlene Klepees at the Mayo Clinic, healing from cerebral palsy at age 20 in a prayer-vision-church visit sequence, is one. Bill Owens healing from liver failure at a Florida hospital the day after a prayer circle, is another. Ryan Hare´s healing from chicken pox complications (have to check the testimony again for hospital info). And that body of testimonies supplements the grouped records of the Catholic Lourdes and Beatification Medical examiners, and Christian Sciences wealth of testimonies. That, no less has been supplemented by Craig Keener´s 2011 academic work Miracles, and others. The distinction between psychosomatic healing, and transpersonal/transcendental healing is also clear in a more detailed presentation. That has been a dragging issue for spiritual-religious phenomena. So, along with the issue of deconstructing scientific materialism, you are now getting served notice that the abuse of science for ideology was the result of a certain momentum, and that is getting more balanced all the time. Jo McN Mark Rego Monteiro It’s interesting how any references to these cases I can find are all of religious origins such as healing and revival com etc. It would be beneficial to the argument if such cases could be scientifically documented but even spontaneous healing doesn’t necessarily prove it was a divine miracle as it Possible to Recover from Acquired Cerebral Palsy. While damage to the brain is irreversible, it does not mean individuals with acquired cerebral palsy cannot improve. Neuroplasticity refers to the brain’s ability to reorganize its neural circuitry, which can help the brain recover functions affected by injury for example. Testimonies from prayer recoveries from cancer as another example do not exceed normal rates of spontaneous recovery. There are no scientifically documented miracles and when they were studied using scientific methodology, ...no significant differences were found among twenty various health categories, including mortality, despite explicit prayers "for prevention of death or healing." Quite frankly, it’s based on a logical fallacy called an appeal to ignorance meaning if we can’t explain something, it must mean God did it. Honestly, any perceived evidence supporting creation with design and intent is based on logical fallacies. Reply Share 15hEdited Mark Rego Monteiro Jo McN "Logical fallacies" are philosophical tools, and require understanding the operation of modern knowledge domains and how they have been studying different phenomena domains, i.e. epistemological and epistemic issues in the philosophical subdiscipline of epistemology. Thus, it is necessary to deconstruct the heavily distorted field now called "science" that was originally called scientific "natural philosophy," which is in agreement with the point of biologist turned philosopher M Pigliucci and his focus on the Limits of Science. Pigliucci was an anti-theist, it is worth noting. Thus, "science" is in fact scientific philosophy. One of the definitions of scientific philosophy is the study of physical objects and processes. That includes methodological naturalism. That certainly has been justified in starting the disciplines of scientific philosophy. However, it is necessary to grasp the limits of scientific philosophy, and situate it in its larger multidisciplinary philosophical context. Thus, scientific methodology doesn´t invoke agent design and intent. Yet, modern scientific philosophy, originally scientific natural philosophy, was invented by Christians taking ancient Greek component philosophy and revamping it. Notably at the U of Paris, the monk Thomas of Aquinas took Aristotle´s esoteric First Cause and applied Jesus´ heritage and innovated loving, lawful, parental Creator God in an argument that made the Universe created, not co-eternal with God. In fact, it´s funny to note that physicists like Einstein had actually returned to a view of a static Universe, while the Catholic priest and physicist G Lemaitre actually developed the original Big Bang Theory. Hubbell actually only confirmed Lemaitre´s original data, and himself couldn´t accept the empiricial implications. That even represents the transpersonal, metaphysical, psychosocial, and cultural dynamics in play in a microcosm. Methodological naturalism doesn´t rule. It is embedded. (see next) Reply Share 7m Mark Rego Monteiro Jo McN About your “noticing” that detail of “religious origins,” you´ll note that the Mayo Clinic was trying to treat Marlene Klepees medically, and took no note of the non-medical nature of her cure experience. Moreover, the subject of miracles have been left behind in all the excitement about modern scientific advances. A formal and systematic treatment of responding to the problem of scientific materialism´s misguided forays, like Dawkins´ kind of ideological atheism, only developed in response to ideological atheism´s losing its wits in popular media circles by around 2000. Craig Keener´s massive 2011 work Miracles is groundbreaking in that respect. Medical disinterest is reflected in medical practitioners using the term “spontaneous remission”, because religious “mechanisms”, or better human-related transpersonal transcendent processes, aren´t in the framework of scientific philosophical study, which studies physical objects and processes. Note I emphasize “science´s” actual nature as philosophical, deconstructing the conceit of scientific materialism that “science´s facts” are the “truth”, and not actually human constructed philosophy, no matter how fun the tech. Yet, a number of doctors and scholars have begun writing on the subject, including Harvard´s J Rediger MD and Lissa Rankin MD. Moreover, I notice you didn´t actually research the specific case to discipline your comments with its empirical data. Or by “religious origins” are you accusing CBN in one case of conspiracy to fraudulent presentation that includes the Mayo Clinic report. Ms. Klepees weighed less than 2 lbs at birth. Klepees couldn´t play with kids much as she grew up, and as a teenager had muscular surgery, the prevailing treatment. However, she suffered terribly. The attacks were só violent that they even left attendants with broken bones. Or are you accusing a report citing the Mayo Clinic as fraudulent because its presented by a religious source. Because the medical community hasn´t been geared to handle such testimonies and report them themselves? In fact, Larry Dossey MD introduces L Mehl-Madrona MD, PhD´s book Coyote Medicine with extensive presentation of various Lourdes´ Medical Clinic miracles, and comments directly about the ideological opposition of the medical community to publishing such reports. Actually, your phraseology communicates the overspecialization of someone limited to sci-tech interests, used to handling objects instead of studying human beings, inadequate awareness of science´s and technology´s being overvalued by society in general. Your very attitude is apparently fairly typical of the scientific field. Late psychiatrist and ecopsychologist John Mack noted similar issues simply in terms of eco-psychology. New Atheists try to argue that the high percentage of atheists in the sciences disproves God, or the like. In fact, it is a fundamental issue argued since Cartesian geometric-scientific types prompted G Vico´s response in the early 1700s with insight that human behavior is complex, including “verum factum,” the truth is what you make (formalized by Piaget as “constructivism” in the 1900s). Your assertion, “it would be beneficial to the argument if such cases could be scientifically documented....” Medical attestations are in fact scientific documentation. Your response demonstrates not the failure of the evidence, but the manner of how it is interpreted. Your comment tries to deny medical impossibility and assert medical possibility. Your reference to neuroplasticity is a conditional physical phenomenal mechanism, but not a self-generating process. People don´t just snap their fingers and heal. That´s where functional literacy in psychosocial and cultural assessments, ie, just listening to spiritual-religious testimony and understanding its logical coherence at various Levels of Explanation. That includes transpersonal psychosomatic testimonies appearing in medical doctors´ books themselves, as with C Crandall MD and L Mehl-Madrona, and Larry Dossey MD´s citing the Lourdes´ Medical Clinic. Those are a selection amongst many current, modern, and historical cases, all the way back to Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and shamanic healing. You say, “Testimonies of prayer recoveries from cancer do not exceeed normal rates of spontaneous recovery.” Here, you are creating categories that you are interpreting, and it seems that you are trying to interpret it to mean that prayer doesn´t work, it´s actually just spontaneous recovery. Thus, you would treat “prayer recoveries” and “spontaneous recovery” as if it´s a pattern of, say, geyser eruptions. Again, “prayer recovery” means what, exactly? And please recall the definition of “interpretivism”, and for that matter, I suggest the significance of therapeutic psychological school diversity. However, as for prayer itself, a simple overview of Catholic Lourdes and beatification miracles certified by Medical Clinics and professionals and comparison with Christian Science will demonstrate differences in the meaning of “prayer”. In fact, Christian Science was founded around 1880, and grew because of member experience of spiritual-religious benefits, with many experiences of healing long before modern medicine. The issue of the elements of practice in prayer itself are an issue. Shift to the Simonton Cancer Clinic and the two books written by their founder OC Simonton MD. We observe that the first one, Getting Well Again from 1978 was psychosomatic and did not include transpersonal issues. His second book The Healing Journey a few years later was fully concerned with the combination of spiritual-religious transpersonal phenomena and practice along with psychosomatic issues. (see next) Reply Share 5m Mark Rego Monteiro Jo Mc “...No scientifically documented miracles....” Scientific philosophical research doesn´t document miracles, another basic fallacy on your part. It does provide rigorous supportive evidence of the broader empirical occurence, however, recorded in transpersonal psychological, social, historical, religious, and cultural details, including symbolic-energetic mind-consciousness elements captured in a comprehensive multidisciplinary case history. The identification of the miracle in the case of Ms. Klepees´ healed cerebral palsy involves the Mayo Clinic´s unexplained sequence of a suffering patient leaving the clinic one day and returning without any more symptoms of a devastating condition for which she had actually had invasive and reconstructive surgery performed in the past with no lasting relief. Religious people, and someone like myself with one degree in Biological Anthropology and another in International Relations has competence in the necessary range of disciplines to interpret the information literately and without denial and fallacies. Ms. Klepees´ healing followed her prayer-vision-church visit sequence in a causal process. She didn´t take up her religion overnight, nor did she find a substitute unknown medical surgical technique to perpetrate a pro-religious fraud. As for science, it studies physical phenomena and seeks physical mechanisms. Scientists are not trained in the psychosocial studies disciplines and their empiricism, much less transpersonal and theological disciplines. Thus, you are in fact demonstrating the larger problems of overspecialization and ideological scientific materialism. You don´t know the limits of science. Biologist turned philosopher M Pigliucci went from anti-theist to discussing the limits of science, including his making the key point, “science is a kind of philosophy. Darwin was still called a natural philosopher.” As for your last comment, it´s called the “god of the gaps” fallacy, not the “appeal to ignorance” as you might say in some atheist lab clubhouse. That would apply if the issue were physical objects or processes. In this case, however, no claims are being made about an unknown physical mechanism. It is at least a transpersonal psychosomatic activitated healing with reference to a transcendental referent. It is the reverse of a “god of the gaps” fallacy, a kind of “gap in the God” spiritual-religious fallacy, since you are visibly overspecialized, ideologically scientific materialist, and not functionally literate in comparative religious studies, and the psychosocial and cultural components that extend to transpersonal psychology, the philosophy of religion, and theology. Minor placebo affect healings, and even more extensive ones, demonstrate a number of psychoneuroimmunological type of mechanisms that reflect psychosocial action. Ms. Klepees´ longitudinal case history reveals details that reflect the spiritual-religious transpersonal factors that at the very least activate psychosomatic mechanisms, and reflect a transcendental factor, with historical sociological dimensions back in time all the way to Jesus. All together, that combination of mechanisms and processes creates what might be called a transcendental nexus, called divine intervention. Incidentally, I studied the evolution of speech, symbolic behavior, and religious ritual, and só know what I´m talking about with all these issues. Understanding the distinction of the empirical human symbolic-energetic system of mind and consciousness involves an immaterial quality, close to wave-like and rhythmic resonance in nature, but involving subjective and transpersonal, and transcendent components. &&& Mark Rego Monteiro John McNeely My phrasing was adequate to convey the concept. Your conclusions, however, are ideologically inclined to ridicule and negation, not philosophical and accurate. If a region of the brain is activated by watching sports or reading great literature, while listening to pop music or listining to spiritual-religious music, that is a scientific kind of classification that establishes a relationship between a person´s brain and certain kinds of activity. Your crass use of porn reflects your antagonistic ideological mentality on this subject, associated with "confirmation bias" and non sequitors, as you demonstrated. Nevertheless, observation of sexually stimulating material will activate certain brain regions. One philosophical conclusion is that that region, or zone as I termed it, is related to that activity. It is a scientific register associated with that activity. Thus, since the researchers are specifying that since the MRI´s in such cases are in relation to spiritual-religious activity, you might want to research if it is the same as listening to pop music, say, or Harry Potter, or thinking about unicorns and Santa Claus. That would at least allow you to attempt a more imaginative and less profligate kind of comment that might extend your cognition instead of your mind-numbing ideological skeptical extremism. And as case in point, it´s noteworthy that you ignored the implications of medically attested, medically impossible healings with spiritual-religious testimony. Reply Share 20h John McNeely Mark Rego Monteiro To quote your own words: “you are making an assertion without citation” Give me one example with citation of a medically impossible healing. Make sure you take note of the source when doing so and predetermine if it’s legitimate. Such as a non biased source such as the Harvard institute of medicine vs a biased religious source. In other words, if you want to use science to legitimize your claim, please use a legitimate scientific source. Reply Share 20hEdited John McNeely Mark Rego Monteiro My point with the porn reference was to dramatically show that every activity of the brain regardless of its source activates regions of the brain. That’s what thinking does, it activates the brain. Prayer activates the medial prefrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex — the mid-front and back portions, The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) mediates decision making, is selectively involved in the retrieval of remote long-term memory and supports memory and consolidation on time-scales. The Posterior cingulate cortex is strongly inter-connected both with brain areas known to be involved in learning and motivation and with those that are sensitive to reinforcement contingencies. There is no argumentative relevance to brain function associated with prayer and meditation other than what is activated when doing so. Reply Share 19hEdited Mark Rego Monteiro John McNeely Bias begins with a person themselves. The issue is empiricism and philosophical analysis, since any personal interested viewpoints can be accounted for appropriately by a self-aware scholar. Thus, I´m afraid your expressed view suggests that you´ve just disqualified yourself from an empirical dialogue, since Harvard medical school merely provides one source of views, not a supreme judgment of truth. And in fact, their context at Harvard University is a multidisciplinary one along with Harvard Divinity School, and so on. As for your conduct and pretense of trying to frame the scientific community as the only source of truthful philosophical scholarship, is a simple fallacy. Barack Obama a Christian, his spiritual path and its story, and his biography are not pronounced by Harvard medical school studies, and have only begun to be mentioned in scholarly papers. Craig Keener, PhD has written a groundbreaking 2011 book on Miracles, and one of his tasks was to contribute to making prominent the fallacies of anti-miracle anti-testimony rationalism with a focus on David Hume. Hume himself was careless enough to dismiss a current case of Pascal´s daughter having a publicly known persistently infected wound, being healed by touching a religious "relic" (despite even being a likely fraud itself), and being healed. Modern rational knowledge making clearer the fraudulence of the relic merely creates a more rigorous standard of focus for spiritual-religious practice of legitimate transpersonal and transcendental seeking of healing. Philosophical truth itself, meanwhile, the actual framework of scientific philosophy itself, is determined by logical coherence and correspondence with reality, a larger scope than the philosophical subdiscipline of "science," which studies merely physical phenomena and is limited to that. Philosophy makes up "science" and composes the basis of modern diversified knowledge of reality through University scholarship. Sorry to inform you. Meanwhile, I mentioned three names of healings with testimony in my other dialogue with you in this thread, with Marlene Klepees one worthy of focus and the Mayo Clinic as the medical source. The Mayo Clinic´s medical records are included by salient mention in the docu-drama video by CBN. If you feel mistrust of the reported information in the video, then it is incumbent upon you to learn to identify your own inner issues. It is important to develop a broader base of knowledge resources, and Bernie Siegel MD´s Love, Medicine, and Miracles, L Mehl-Madrona MD, PhD´s books like Coyote Medicine, C Crandall MD´s books like Touching Heaven. Anyone is free to follow up and seek such references and more. Reply Share 12m Mark Rego Monteiro John McNeely Your getting more specific about the brain´s neurological areas and their associated functional activity has you absorbed in one component of the issue. The conclusion beyond that is the issue of the identity of the activity. That is a class of brain activity MRI pattern that establishes a scientific reference to the reality of the activity. In fact, that is all that particular detail means. It is a foundation for additional scientific philosophical reasoning linked to psychosocial issues of the interface from neuronal brain activity to the symbolic-energetic systems that people demonstrate by expressing their thoughts in words, and engaging in verbal expression of subjective experience. That enters into the nature and meaning of mind and consciousness, and its relevance to spiritual-religious phenomena and experience, but that is another subject in fact. MRI brainscans indicate the identity of spiritual-religious states, as a specific scientific referent. Your difficulty in recognizing that classification process is noteworthy. You appear to be assuming that someone is arguing that a characteristic brain activation proves God´s existence. No, the proof of God isn´t in the brain state itself. The proof of God is in the combination of the spiritual-religious phenomena and its full range of component phenomena and knowledge that is a multidisciplinary argument. WL Craig´s arguments are a good start, although I want to adjust his moral argument a bit. John McNeely Mark Rego Monteiro I think your use of the word “proof” is unwarranted. Indirect evidence drawing assumptuous conclusions at best. Reply Share 1hEdited Mark Rego Monteiro John McNeely You´re free to think what you want. However, the demands of empirical reality, logical coherence and correspondence to that empirical reality are simply bigger than your demonstrated basis in the ideology of physicalist scientific materialism, based on metaphysical naturalism. "Science," ie scientific philosophy is about studying physical phenomena and developing concepts around that for knowledge of the physical world. Not for learning how to love a romantic partner, nor make friends, nor understand art and creativity, nor how Freud´s term "ego" relates to Jung´s term "Higher Self," nor what the Buddhist Four Noble Truths mean, nor Ralph Nader´s contributions to citizenship. Much less spiritual-religious phenomena, even in relation to scientific material, and evaluating the evidence for the existence of God. Technically, the latter is considered the philosophy of religion, or metaphysics, but closely relates to comparative religious studies. Modern University-based philosophical scholarship has developed a full range of disciplines through observation, but that´s called the liberal arts and sciences with empiricism, along with other methods like introspection and multidisciplinary studies. In a metaphorical sense, you stand at a lab door ignoring the hallway at your back that leads to the larger building with door outside. That larger building alone operates with an administration and its disciplinary concerns, and all embedded within the larger society. The significance of University-based philosophical scholarship, with empiricism even more fundamental than its driving case subdiscipline(s) of scientific philosophy, is simply central to "science", i.e. scientific philosophy, and the coherent discussion of globalized society itself. Your use of terms is restricted to verbal contradiction, asserting details about detailed technical physical conditions, and making unsound conclusions and assertions, without acknowledging the basic questions and issues involved with the limits of science. Again, as if you are in a lab standing with your back to the hallway door and saying about any non-scientific subject like God, spiritual-religious phenomena, business administration, or democracy, "There is no scientific paper saying 'business administration' or 'democracy' exists. So, it´s unwarranted and "assumptuous"," by which I think you mean, "presumptuous", or "based on unexamined assumptions." The proof of God, however, like spiritual-religious phenomena, business administration, and democracy, is warranted, and based on the key acknowledgement of spiritual-religious phenomena itself. Your manner of making assertions based on speculative skepticism is simply like unsophisticated contradiction. "No, I don´t think it is." That´s not a functionally literate argument. Thus, in sum, Marlene Klepees´ healing of cerebral palsy from being born with 2 lbs to her suffering from attempted surgical treatment, and visit to the Mayo Clinic provides medical attestation. Ms. Klepees suffered terrible pain there no less than before, and continued her spiritual-religious practice. The Clinic´s medical staff then recorded first her absence, and then her return with no more continuing medical problem. A materialist ideologue might attempt to posit a scenario that Ms. Klepees actually found a surgeon with unbelievable skill outside the Mayo Clinic without reporting him who fixed her up in hours with no recovery necessary. Or a hypnotherapist with incredible skill who did his own spectacular therapeutic magic. Both of which may have interesting areas of information of their own in relevant ways. However, not here. The reported testimony by Ms. Klepees is that her prayers since her embrace of Christianity at 12 or so were finally rewarded. She gave testimony that she had a prayer-vision-church visit sequence, a report of empirical transpersonal psychosocial significance with transcendent content. Her testimony with medical attestation joins numerous others in media records, but also more organized church records like Christian Science and Catholic Lourdes and beatification Medical examinations and miracle evaluations. That extends back in time to the historical sociological heritage including Quaker Friends like founder George Fox´s healing accounts, church spiritual practitioners like Julian of Norwich´s healing, Benedict of Nursia´s earlier reports, Anthony of the Desert the Father of Christian monks, and back to the early Christians and the NT reports of Jesus and the Apostles, with their OT heritage. Cross-cultural shamanic healings have also been represented by L Mehl-Madrona MD, PhD and the legacy of anthropologist Michael Harner, and in records like that of Sganyadiyo (Handsome Lake), a prophet at the time of Thomas Jefferson. All these elements are consistent with WL Craig´s arguments for God based around the updated First Cause argument, the Kalam Cosmological argument, and that includes the Resurrection of Jesus. &&& John McNeely Mark Rego Monteiro The first cause argument: The universe must have had a cause. If the universe had a cause, that cause was God. So God exists. Please tell me your not serious. Reply Share 31mEdited Mark Rego Monteiro John McNeely In fact, you´re projecting how you´re not serious. Psychological projection, a phenomenon understood in psychology, and in philosophy, a fallacy. See how that works? Your conduct is subject to analysis for what is called "integrity." It is a form of philosophical analysis, derived from valuing University-based scholarship, a secularized Christian spiritual practice. You present the Kalam´s basic syllogism, with "syllogism" an example of a powerful logical philosophical method. People who don´t use philosophical investigation to understand, still can use its appearance to distort the truth, as you do here. However, by neglecting the quality of philosophical discipline in the search of truth, you misrepresent the syllogism, and bend it to make it appear circular. It goes like this: - Anything that exists has a cause. - The Universe exists - Therefore, the Universe has a cause. That´s the first component to appreciate in seeking to understand the role of philosophical logic, in the search for truth. What could have caused the Universe, using modern philosophical, scientific philosophical, and empirical philosophical concepts? Our scientific philosophical concepts of the physical Universe define it as matter and energy in spacetime. Thus, on this 4D physical plane, matter, energy, and spacetime did not exist when the First Cause created the Universe. What, then, are the properties of the First Cause of the Universe? - The Universe has a cause. - The Universe defines our current existence in spacetime, matter-energy, so that the Universe has a Cause that is not limited to them/is beyond their constraints, and is therefore spaceless, timeless, immaterial, extremely powerful. What is immaterial and can Cause anything? Abstractions or Minds (Abstractions don´t cause anything, like the number 9/ we know human minds that design tools, baby-cribs, and ecological buildings, but here we are talking about an immaterial transcendent Mind). - So, the Universe has a Cause that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and extremely powerful, apparently a Mind. That First Cause, then, is what we can call God, a Divine Mind. And we are doing it not in Aristotle´s day and age, but in the psychosocial historical legacy community of Thomas Aquinas at the U of Paris, who, and we along with him, stands stands in Jesus´ legacy of loving integrity for God and Moses. &&& John McNeely Mark Rego Monteiro I’m going to give you an A+ for pontificating in irrelevance but this is all based on logical fallacies. 1. The universe does not require a cause, it requires a catalyst. 2. We know that catalyst is energy and understand the conversion of energy to matter down to the first one billionth of a second in experimentation in the cern particle collider. The origins of this energy is currently unknown and I agree it could very well be timeless and infinitely powerful which corresponds with Einstein’s theory of a cyclical universe with infinite energy causing endless expansions and contractions in endless variations of the same universe. So if that potentially infinite energy source we can call God, we must do so without the unfounded assumption of any conscious design or intent. Reply Share 1h Mark Rego Monteiro John McNeely Thanks to the Freedom of Religion and Expression in University-based, UN human rights society in Jesus´ legacy, you can mix and match, or rather, remain oblivious to the embedded context of scientific philosophy as much as you want. Based on my points situating scientific philosophy appropriately as a philosophical subdiscipline, someone like me is able to identify the Levels of Explanation and Analysis, and knowledge domains (ie epistemology) that distinguishes a "cause" and a "catalyst." The physics attempts to track the meaning of time to the past include the Verenkin et al theory that an infinite past Universe is impossible. That is consistent with the notion of the Big Bang, and the "white hole" hypothesis material, and the metaphysical philosophical analysis. Your sustained focus on a scientific physicalist concept like "catalyst" has potential applicability as far as it might go in scientific philosophizing. It doesn´t have the same range of explanatory power that is necessary to integrate spiritual-religious phenomena and the need for spiritual modernization to address related phenomena expressed by FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel New Deal, and vision and legacy in UN human rights-sustainability-pro-social-co-op biz and overcome the problems of the three forms of materialist ideology: secular, scientific, and economic (linked to businesspeople´s profiteering) $$$ John McNeely Mark Rego Monteiro It’s very entertaining debating you, that is when I can figure out exactly what the point is you’re trying to make. 😬 When you consider integrity, take note of your evasiveness when making a counterpoint. Reply Share 12hEdited Mark Rego Monteiro John McNeely My "evasiveness"? Hardly. Your own psychological projection, the philosophical fallacy that it is, is instructive in a textbook fashion. I´ve situated scientific philosophy´s nature as knowledge studying limited kinds of phenomena, and how it´s situated in philosophical scholarship performed originally as Christian spiritual practice taken from the ancient Greek and eclectics. Meanwhile, you throw around words, and avoid tying them to any specific words and content, which allows you to posture dishonestly to your heart´s content. I have pointed out the box you live in, the "lab at which you stand, ignoring the larger world at your back." And all you do is try to posture like I´m in some lab with you. Sorry. The worst case scenarios for scientific materialists were Bill Ivin the anthrax killer and Ted Kaczynski the Unabomber. I´m the eco-social justice activist and interfaith UU Christian spiritual practitioner, who understands richly why this site of Contemplative Mystics is "trans-scientific," and represented coherently and congruently by the University-based liberal arts and sciences, and their fulfillment in a method, Multidisciplinary Philosophy. Less extreme in the case of your kind of scientific materialism, depending, is the unscholarly conduct of scientific materialists like R. Dawkins "God Delusion" equating the Inquisition with Christianity and all religion in fact, and even S Hawking´s buying into that view by stating rather imprudently, "Philosophy is dead," to soften the blow a bit that it was in fact the height of foolishness. I´ve made a range of comparable perspective issues that help situate your scientific materialism. You don´t look in scientific journals for understanding romantic love, making friends, business administration, Ralph Nader´s consumer advocacy and citizenship, no less than the historical sociology of transpersonal psychosomatic healing as a spiritual-religious phenomenon, and understanding the transcendental nature of God. Incidentally, your comment about a physics phenomena "catalyst" being the First Cause can be assessed philosophically. A material factor, some aspect of the Higgs Field or quantum vacuum field, is still a physical phenomonon. The issue of the existence of "eternity" and an "infinite temporal field" is what scientific philosophy can only study under physical assumptions. Systems Theory and complex systems, advanced significantly by biologist L v Bertalanaffy and physicist Fritjof Capra´s eco-psycho-social sustainability efforts, has given a powerful context for emergentism, epistemics, and epistemology. That is, layering of systems of reality occur, and in fact the human mind´s symbolic-psychologico-energetic systems distinct from bio-neuro-chemo-electric brain systems, in a dualist interactionism, involve "mind over matter" no less. Thus, the issue of the First Cause representing a distinct separate system, related to a Supervenient phenomenon as in "mind over matter", and transcendent in its power as Source of the Universe can be philosophically understood. A physical catalyst as you are trying to suggest, ignores the fact that the "white hole singularity" itself in terms of physics´ phenomena, is itself simply not understood. It represents unknown conditions, in a phrase, "the universe did not collapse into a multitude of black holes." Given, moreover, "science´s" actual nature as scientific philosophy, that term better represents the very activity of thinking philosophically and symbolically, involving the human symbolic mind. That very "thing" is part not of a "thing," but people, aka human beings, conscious agents (to varying degrees). The recognition of spiritual-religious phenomena, then, assumes its natural place in modern University-based philosophical scholarship, including scientific philosophy, empiricism, psychosocial studies, and comparative religious studies. The analysis, moving to the phenomenon of symbolic, psychologico-energetic mind, then is in the philosophy of religion and comparative religious studies (itself a multidisiciplinary approach), drawing on scientific philosophy and empirical psychosocial studies. Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets, Hebrew-Judaic bible writing, like Chinese, Indian, and other variant forms, developed and proceeded to develop. Jesus´ legacy drew on the ancient Greek, Islamic, and eclectics to develop modern philosophical scholarship. "Mind over matter" reflects the ability of human symbols to sustain not just a mind´s symbolic content, not just about physical objects, but about psychosocial realities. Alexander the Great is recorded by some source as having encountered the Cynic philosopher Diogenes, and having a dialogue, Alexander asked, "What does Diogenes want from Alexander?" Diogenes responded, "You can take a step to the side. You are blocking the sun." Alexander responded, "If Alexander could be anyone else, it would be Diogenes." The human mind, then, is itself a phenomenon. Spiritual-religious phenomena also include the story of Socrates´ origins as a philosopher, with the Oracle of Delphi answering Chaerophon´s question, "Who is the wisest man of Athens?" with "Socrates," although at the time Socrates (d. 399 BC/E) had no special reputation. Alexander the Great also went on, two generations later in Aristotle´s time, to conquer his way to the Phrygian city of Gordium with the Gordian knot and prophecy of conquest to the untier of the famous knot in prophetic context. Similarly, then, the burning bush of God with Moses back in ca 1500 BC. Interrelating such information, then, a timeless source of temporal- physical existence is the First Cause philosophical context of its reality. Is it a sea of infinite energy surrounding the physical Universe? Is it a powerful dimension embedded within existing physical reality? The question is, does it act by a physical mechanism/necessity? Random chance? Or design/intention? 1) A mechanism requires time. We observe that the First Cause or its physical white hole singularity is not something we can experience directly, but must infer from evidence through instruments like Cosmic Background Radiation. That is in fact symbolic in nature, along with the scientific philosophical extrapolation back in time and conditions. Something that is beyond our notion of "time" and "space" is thus timeless, or trans-temporal, and the resolution of the physical-logical paradox of "infinite regress." An eternal foundation and source, an infinitude. A physical catalyst involves matter-energy combinations in time, but the First Cause precedes spacetime, and matter-energy. So, your concerns about a physical "catalyst" only apply where known laws of physics operate. 2) Without "time" and "mechanism" being a "necessity", is it chance? "Chance," as a human term, is normally meant to mean "random" and "unpredictable." Yet, that is a human interpretation of events. Scientific laws are in operation for "chance" events like DNA mutations. Humans just don´t track all the details, and some forget about all the lawful complexity in some interactions. 3) Then that seems to leave Design/Intention. That is in general a biological phenomenon that reflects biological goals in biological organismic systems, in their ecosystems that sustain them. Human minds have achieved symbolic-bio-psychologico-energetic functioning. That is a phenomenon. In understanding the way empirical symbolic philosophical interpretation supersedes merely scientific philosophy, we understand the explanatory power of this option. An eternal immaterial Mind, a Divine Mind, can act with intention. That explanation is consistent with spiritual-religious phenomena, practice, experience, and knowledge in multidisciplinary comparative religious studies, with empiricism, and its subdiscipline scientific philosophy. Surprise.