Does the Theistic God Exist?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Prayer's don't work.

@just_sayin

https://skepchick.org/2015/12/its-not-prayer-shaming-its-hypocrite-shaming/

<i>" You could also point to the study that showed that praying for someone with a medical condition actually makes their health slightly worse, but again, that’s not conclusive and it’s not a huge affect. I think we can reasonably say that praying doesn’t really do much other than make the person who prays, and maybe the person they’re praying for, feel better."</i>

Another credible source that shows prayer doesn't work.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
This is a very convenient position: "I am right because what I say is in the realm of supernatural and your standard logical arguments in opposition of it do not apply". Yet what is "supernatural"? By definition, "supernatural" is something that is not a part of this nature. It is something that does not exist in this nature. It is something that, from the point of view of an intellectually honest conscious mind, is a pure fantasy.

I see what you tried there.  @Dreamer didn't realize he was begging the question by claiming prayer can't be real because it isn't scientific.  That's the whole debate - does a theistic God exist.  You however realize what you are doing.  You are trying to dismiss the supernatural out of hand.  The problem with that are things like miracles and answered prayer.  I haven't heard you refute the miracles I have sited.  Nor have I heard a response to the multiple summary of prayer studies which show that prayer works.  I get why you would want to dismiss the supernatural out of hand.  It is easier to do that than to explain why there are miracles such as the blind seeing, the lame walking, and the deaf hearing.  

It seems before you dismiss the supernatural, you should at least address the evidence.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

"Supernatural" can be dismissed by its very definition: it is not something that is a part of nature - it does not exist. What reason would there be to seriously consider existence of something that, by definition, does not exist? It would be like considering a square circle, or a logical statement that is its own negation.

As for "miracles", I am not sure what use there is in trying to refute them when they are not reproducible. Any phenomenon that is not demonstrably reproducible is as good as a superstition. Am I to go out of my way to refute every single claim someone makes about various miraculous events around the world? Do I have to do something to refute claims of the Thai folklore about floating women's heads praying on young virgins at night? Or, perhaps, they have to do something to prove that such things exist? Why is burden of proof not on them?

There are absolutely medically documented cases of people acquiring eyesight, being able to walk anew and acquiring the ability to hear sounds which they did not have before, all quite well explained by modern science. There are far more hearsay cases in which people made such claims without due evidence, and I frankly have zero interest in exploring those.

All of that is not even directly related to the question of "god"'s existence: even if there were magical abilities some humans may have that modern science cannot explain, they would not have implied existence of some sort of creator of the Universe. Star Wars provides a good example of that: our science cannot explain how the Force works, yet at no point does anyone in the Galaxy far-far away even mentions "god", for their science is too far advanced for even the most primitive species to believe in something like that. They might not have a scientific explanation for Force, but they know better than to posit existence of something they have zero evidence for as an attempt to explain it.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;Supernatural" can be dismissed by its very definition: it is not something that is a part of nature - it does not exist.

I reckon you got that so totally wrong its ridiculous. natural doesn't necessarily mean nature to start with. And even if you did use the nature version of it what makes you think that being super natural means that it does not exist. You are making a totally dum assumption because you proberly red it in the book of non logic for dummies who dont under stand logic. And your being hypocritical any way because there is no scientific evidence that Starwars exists also.

just_sayin

@Dreamer
Another credible source that shows prayer doesn't work.

I keep quoting to you from peer reviewed scientific journals by professors at Stanford and Harvard and you rebut with a link to something called 'skepchick.org'?  

Let me add to this discussion, evidence I have mentioned in the debate on does prayer work.

1. I cited the Stanford and Harvard lecturer, Marilyn Schiltz, who  has done a summary of the studies on prayer:

Marilyn Schlitz, Ph.D., and lecturer at Harvard, says, “It's clear from the correlational studies within the epidemiology data that positive relationships exist between religious and spiritual practice and health outcomes on a variety of different conditions.” Moreover, she says that in a study and confirmation study on intercessory prayer, “the prayer groups had statistically significant improvements in outcome, suggesting that the intervention has clinical relevance.” - Fox News

In the recent National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) survey study I mentioned, a significantly high percentage of the population makes use of prayer for other people. Many people believe that if I pray for you, you will become better, or if you pray for me I'll become better, and yet we know very little of the mechanism to explain how this might happen. So this is a frontier area for research. To date, more than 180 studies have been done in this area, with more than half of them producing significant results. In these experiments, one person through their intention tries to influence the physiology or the physical condition of a target system, such as cell cultures, animal models, and there are human studies. As of March 2004, there have been nine controlled clinical trials looking at intercessory prayer (compassionate intention at a distance). Six of these have produced statistically significant positive results. For a complete list of these studies, one can visit the distant healing research site at the Institute of Noetic Sciences Web site (www.noetic.org). - Marilyn Schlitz, Meditation, Prayer and Spiritual Healing: The Evidence

2. I cited multiple individual prayer studies from reputable peer reviewed science journals that prayer works:

From Pub Med:

Effects of intercessory prayer on patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Results: Patients receiving in-person intercessory prayer showed significant overall improvement during 1-year follow-up. ..
Conclusions: In-person intercessory prayer may be a useful adjunct to standard medical care for certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis. 

From Sage Journals:

A Randomized Trial of the Effect of Prayer on Depression and Anxiety

Results:

At the completion of the trial, participants receiving the prayer intervention showed significant improvement of depression and anxiety, as well as increases of daily spiritual experiences and optimism compared to controls (p < 0.01 in all cases). Subjects in the prayer group maintained these significant improvements (p < 0.01 in all cases) for a duration of at least 1 month after the final prayer session. Participants in the control group did not show significant changes during the study. Cortisol levels did not differ significantly between intervention and control groups, or between pre- and post-prayer conditions.

Conclusions:

Direct contact person-to-person prayer may be useful as an adjunct to standard medical care for patients with depression and anxiety. Further research in this area is indicated.

The Effect of Prayer on Depression and Anxiety: Maintenance of Positive Influence One Year after Prayer Intervention

Results:

Evaluations post-prayer at 1 month and 1 year showed significantly less depression and anxiety, more optimism, and greater levels of spiritual experience than did the baseline (pre-prayer) measures (p < 0.01 in all cases).

Conclusions:

Subjects maintained significant improvements for a duration of at least 1 year after the final prayer session. Direct person-to-person prayer may be useful as an adjunct to standard medical care for patients with depression and anxiety. Further research in this area is indicated.

From JAMA

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit

Results  Compared with the usual care group (n=524), the prayer group (n=466) had lower mean±SEM weighted (6.35±0.26 vs 7.13±0.27; P=.04) and unweighted (2.7±0.1 vs 3.0±0.1; P=.04) CCU course scores. Lengths of CCU and hospital stays were not different.

Conclusions  Remote, intercessory prayer was associated with lower CCU course scores. This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.

3.  I referenced a few summary of prayer studies that showed that most prayer studies concluded that prayer works:

Such as:

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE QUALITY OF RESEARCH ON HANDS-ON AND DISTANCE HEALING: CLINICAL AND LABORATORY STUDIES,

which examined the quality of studies of hands-on healing and distance healing that were published between 1955 and 2001. There were 90 identified studies of which 45 had been conducted in clinical settings and 45 in laboratory settings. they reported that 71% of the clinical studies and 62% of the laboratory studies reported positive outcomes; and that the overall internal validity for the studies on distance healing was 75% for the clinical investigations and 81% for the laboratory investigations. So the bulk of studies shows prayer works.

in a Pub Med systematic review of distance prayer 

The Efficacy of “Distant Healing A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

" Of these studies, 13 (57%) yielded statistically significant treatment effects favoring distant healing, nine showed no superiority of distant healing over control interventions and one showed a negative effect for distant healing. "

So the bulk of studies shows that prayer does work.  Further, this can generally be seen in hospitals and medical programs around the world as most have over the last 20 years incorporated spiritual aspects into their treatment programs and academic studies.

4.  I provided examples of miracles that appear in quality scientific journals:

Example of miracle of healing from blindness by prayer, in Science Direct:

Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer

And a case of miraculous stomach healing after prayer, printed in Science Direct:

Case Report of gastroparesis healing: 16 years of a chronic syndrome resolved after proximal intercessory prayer

There is evidence of healings of eyesight and hearing following prayer (see Southern Medical Journal):

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (STEPP) on Auditory and Visual Impairments in Rural Mozambiqu

But you found that skepchick.org didn't agree.  So you have ignored the vast majority of studies on prayer, ignored scientific evidence of miracles, ignored what eminently qualified researchers have found.  Wow, it looks like you are winning this debate (yes that is sarcasm).  If nomenclature were still around he'd probably help you out with a reference from IHateGod.com

The evidence keeps piling up that there is a God and that He answers prayers and performs miracles.  When are you going to confront that evidence?

 

"Lord, I'm desperate.  Just Sayin is kicking my butt with overwhelming evidence of your existence. I cant' win this debate without your help. Help me to prove you don't exist.  Amen" @Dreamer

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
"Supernatural" can be dismissed by its very definition: it is not something that is a part of nature - it does not exist. What reason would there be to seriously consider existence of something that, by definition, does not exist? It would be like considering a square circle, or a logical statement that is its own negation.

As for "miracles", I am not sure what use there is in trying to refute them when they are not reproducible. Any phenomenon that is not demonstrably reproducible is as good as a superstition. 

You are definitely begging the question.  If there is evidence of answered prayer and miracles, then there is evidence of God.  The fact that you can't replicate a miracle in a lab does not negate the physical evidence that one happened.  If I show you evidence of the blind getting their sight back miraculously, which I have done (see above), and then you say, "well, science can't replicate that, so that isn't evidence of a miracle", I'd say that not only are begging the question and wrong, but your admission that science can't explain it is evidence that the blind seeing is a miracle, and that a supernatural being is a work.

It is hard to say that miracles are a 'superstition" when we have documented evidence of them.  Again, let me reference a few for you:

Example of miracle of healing from blindness by prayer, in Science Direct:

Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer

And a case of miraculous stomach healing after prayer, printed in Science Direct:

Case Report of gastroparesis healing: 16 years of a chronic syndrome resolved after proximal intercessory prayer

There is evidence of healings of eyesight and hearing following prayer (see Southern Medical Journal):

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (STEPP) on Auditory and Visual Impairments in Rural Mozambiqu

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Interesting that you think you are winning this debate. Brandolini's law.

@just_sayin

Brandolini's law or a lie flies halfway across the world before truth can get its boots on. With the Internet this is so much worse.

 Look, I used to be high in faith in my opinion. Though determining a metric on religiosity is difficult. I used to quote all sorts of misinformation from various peer reviewed articles and people with Phds. I have been on the other side.

  I find it sad that people mix religion/spirituality with sCAM complementary and alternative medicine. I also understand confirmation bias, you will see your sources as more credible and mines as less. With the Internet it is easy to find every scrap of evidence that supports your side and pile it up. I am sure in the past I've overwhelmed skeptics in a gish gallop and didn't even know it.

Sciencebased medicine, quackwatch, skepdoc, Richard Sloan's book Blind Faith, and now Skepchic.

Intercessory prayer studies are a waste of resources.

"Intercessory prayer studies accomplish nothing. “Believers” won’t change their view if further studies are negative, and nonbelievers won’t change theirs if additional studies appear positive. Prayer may help some people feel reassured when they are worried, but to me it makes more sense to spend one’s time and energy on more constructive health-promoting activities. Although luck is still a significant factor, I think it is more sensible to believe that health is more likely to be influenced by prudent living than by magical thinking. Also, if praying for people worked, would strangers praying against them cause them to become sicker? Or, as one of my religious friends put it, “Is God is so that he or she would respond to popularity contests?”" Stephen Barrett, M.D.
December 27, 2009

https://quackwatch.org/related/faith/

There is only a limited amount of research funds available. Studies into intercessory prayer and other sCAM are a waste of time and money. Even worse they encourage quackery.

 At this point all that is left is to show the individual flaws of your studies. I am going to type faster in the interest of speed now, but more mistakes.

Fox News is a questionable source, I am not sure why you would use that as a source again. Having a Harvard degree is impressive and many alumni perform great deeds, but others turn to grifiting. Look at the quote correlation between religion/spirituality and health outcomes. Again, having a social support system leads to better health outcomes. If your too sick to drive to the doctor having someone to drive you helps.

The problem with these studies is they are poorly designed and can't control for co-variables like the two I mentioned above.  The failure to isolate religion alone and prove that it is helpful is the main obstacle.

Another confounding factor that hasn't been controlled for being able to go to church. If a person has a mobility disability this alone will make for poorer health outcomes. Maybe their mobility disability is due to cancer or heart disease. Further aggravated by lack of social support of not being able to go to church.

As for the National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine:

"The authors argued that after 20 years and an expenditure of $2 billion, the failure of NCCIH was evidenced by the lack of publications and the failure to report clinical trials in peer-reviewed medical journals. They recommended that NCCIH be defunded or abolished and the concept of funding alternative medicine be discontinued."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Complementary_and_Integrative_Health

"

Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Should Be Defunded

---

Wallace I. Sampson, M.D.
December 10, 2002"

https://quackwatch.org/related/nccam/

NCCAM Watch An Antidote to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

https://quackwatch.org/nccam/

This post is getting long to be continued and I am still debunking your first source.

 

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

You are definitely begging the question.  If there is evidence of answered prayer and miracles, then there is evidence of God.  The fact that you can't replicate a miracle in a lab does not negate the physical evidence that one happened.  

It absolutely does negate the validity of that evidence. If something cannot be replicated in a controlled environment in any shape on form, then that something cannot be verified to be anything but fiction, and any decent epistemological system would reject is as a candidate for knowledge.

"Evidence" is not made valid by someone documenting something; anyone can "document" anything and publish the documentation somewhere, and sometimes large numbers of people make claims that later prove to be a case of collective confusion and parroting. Evidence is made valid by it being verifiable and testable. If someone claims to have seen a T-Rex in the Central Park of New York City, there better be something that others can do to make sure that a T-Rex has disturbed something in the park in a way that no other creature feasibly could do; otherwise, even if the person's claim in reality happens to be true, anyone assuming it to be true based on the person's words alone makes a serious epistemological mistake.
And there is a substantial difference between believing in something without due evidence and happening to be right by lack, and being right as a consequence of proper thinking. If someone claims to be able to win the roulette game every time they say "Abrakadabra" before the game, then he says "Abrakadabra" before the game and wins - then he will not have proven himself right, he will have only proven that in that particular game he said "Abrakadabra" and won. The claimed pattern has not been verified, and any observer has no reason to assume anything other than the guy having been very lucky (which happens).

In other words, even if somehow some of the outstanding claims made in the Bible happen to be true, no serious thinker should assume them to be true given that they cannot be tested in a controlled environment.

just_sayin said:

If I show you evidence of the blind getting their sight back miraculously, which I have done (see above), and then you say, "well, science can't replicate that, so that isn't evidence of a miracle", I'd say that not only are begging the question and wrong, but your admission that science can't explain it is evidence that the blind seeing is a miracle, and that a supernatural being is a work.

There is a difference between phenomena that we know to exist, but cannot explain at the moment in the scope of existing widely accepted models - and phenomena that someone claims exist, but nobody can prove that they do. There are many phenomena belonging to both categories.

For instance, we still cannot explain how Uranium is produced in this Universe: we have theories well backed by numerical simulations and various indirect observations, but we do not have enough data to constrain those theories sufficiently to explain why the amount of produced Uranium is what it is - furthermore, there have been several stars observed that have an abnormal ratio of Uranium and Thorium, something that defies all current theories. Some of my colleagues have worked on this problem and made some progress, but it is still largely terra incognita. This is, however, something that is absolutely a subject to scientific inquiry, and no serious physicist will ever say, "Oh, we cannot explain this at the moment, so there must be some magic involved".

We also cannot explain how "ghosts" can exist in this Universe. With "ghosts", however, their alleged existence is predicated on a number of vague claims made by some "witnesses", and the attempts of scientists to document their existence all have resulted in empty goose chases. This is not something that science cannot explain at the moment, but can in principle, after a lot of work - this is something that is in the realm of fiction from the scientific perspective because there is absolutely nothing to go on to, no data to back up any possible theory of "ghosts'" existence. It is a superstition as far as anyone should be concerned.
"God" and "miracles" belong to this category.

just_sayin said:

It is hard to say that miracles are a 'superstition" when we have documented evidence of them.  Again, let me reference a few for you:

Example of miracle of healing from blindness by prayer, in Science Direct:

Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer

And a case of miraculous stomach healing after prayer, printed in Science Direct:

Case Report of gastroparesis healing: 16 years of a chronic syndrome resolved after proximal intercessory prayer

There is evidence of healings of eyesight and hearing following prayer (see Southern Medical Journal):

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (STEPP) on Auditory and Visual Impairments in Rural Mozambiqu

You are performing a sleight of hand here. Earlier you claimed that the "supernatural" cannot be replicated by science. Now you are citing "evidence" that very much can be followed and tested: we can go and look for the people referenced (I will make a huge assumption here that the unspecified individuals in the studies are real and one could contact them upon request made of the authors and approved of the individuals; strictly speaking, there is no evidence that the described phenomena took place in reality), examine their documented medical history and verify that the claims made in these papers are accurate. That contradicts your earlier claim, making it unclear what your stance is on scientific verifiability of what you call the "supernatural" - which I still do not understand how can be related to nature in which we live.

Aside from that, I will have to come back to my earlier point (I will not mention the fact that the papers these studies are published in are... not exactly reputable, that the first two have the same leading authors and the third is done in a broken up country in which no practical verification of cited evidence is realistically possible: it is beside the point, although it is quite symptomatic) - that the fact that someone claims existence of a connection between two events and that both of those events happened to occur does not imply the reality of the connection. There have been countless cases of people having far better health outcomes than medically expected for the "average" individual; there have been people who had been diagnosed with incurable and extremely quickly developing cancers and subsequently completely recovered, or people who had been nearly paralyzed and yet, through seemingly sheer stubbornness, ending up top-level athletes (here is a curious example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Dikul). Medical science is still in its infancy and there are many phenomena that are at odds with some of its general postulates, hence a disclaimer almost always has to be made that most of its results are some form of statistical averaging and not absolute laws of the Universe.
The fact that someone happened to pray for recovery and recovered in a way that modern science cannot easily explain does not at all suggest any sort of "miracle". It may easily be a coincidence or some natural mechanism that has not been properly studied yet. Some have: prayer, as I explained in another thread, similar to meditation, has clear (and pretty well documented and studied) positive neural effects as the person puts themselves in a very positive mental state that facilitates self-confidence, contentment and optimism.

To claim that something that cannot be easily explained by modern science is necessarily a "miracle" bestowed by "god" is to claim that the Earth's surface was supposed to be flat in 1,000 AD, but "god"'s intervention made it behave as if it was not flat, and by 1,700 AD he finally physically stretched it out into a sphere. Is that what you believe to be true as well?
I, for one, am not inclined to think that what is true is based on current best guess of the society. I think that, quite the reverse, the current best guess of the society is an attempt to explain what is true based on limited knowledge and flawed philosophy - the truth itself is independent of any explanations. Whether your data suggests that the Earth is flat or not, it is one way or the other - and if newer data starts suggesting otherwise, it means that one of the two suggestions is wrong, not that the shape of Earth has changed. Do you disagree with this?

Dreamer

Argument Topic: The supreme court over-expansion of religious freedom is riling up atheists.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-takes-broad-view-religious-rights-key-cases-2022-06-21/

There is simply too much respect for religion. If we aren't careful we will have government funding of quackery. Oh wait, I think we already do.

https://www.nccih.nih.gov/about/budget/complementary-and-alternative-medicine-funding-by-nih-institutecenter

Even further we will have pro-quack laws that protect grifters. I don't see any choice but to push back.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/quack-protection-acts-advance-in-state-legislatures/

Do we want medicare and medicaid funding sCAM (complementary and alternative medicine and faith healers?

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
It absolutely does negate the validity of that evidence. If something cannot be replicated in a controlled environment in any shape on form, then that something cannot be verified to be anything but fiction, and any decent epistemological system would reject is as a candidate for knowledge.

"Evidence" is not made valid by someone documenting something; anyone can "document" anything and publish the documentation somewhere, and sometimes large numbers of people make claims that later prove to be a case of collective confusion and parroting. Evidence is made valid by it being verifiable and testable. If someone claims to have seen a T-Rex in the Central Park of New York City, there better be something that others can do to make sure that a T-Rex has disturbed something in the park in a way that no other creature feasibly could do; otherwise, even if the person's claim in reality happens to be true, anyone assuming it to be true based on the person's words alone makes a serious epistemological mistake.

You are once again begging the question.  Just because you can't replicate something, doesn't mean that what you see isn't real - such as a miracle.  Do you know how weak this argument is.  You are saying that someone shouldn't believe their eyes.  A woman who was paralyzed for 22 1/2 years stands up and walks under her own power after prayer and you say "that doesn't count as a miracle.  You can't replicate that scientifically, so she isn't up walking around.  Go sit down.  This isn't a miracle.  I can't explain it so, it didn't happen."  That is so .  Her healing is verified.  It's even on video tape.  See here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNg7GWnXV_c 

Since you might miss it let me help you:

See image of Delia Knox - she was hit by a drunk driver in 1987 and her spinal cord was severed.  She was in a wheel chair unable to feel or move her legs for 22 1/2 years.


Do you see the wheel chair in the image.  If not - please watch the video, or better Google it and see her full story.

Then after being prayed for she moved her legs.  She walked around the church, with assistance because her legs are atrophied.  Then some weeks later, at the same revival, she returned and lead worship.  See image:



See the lady with the red jacket on with the white sleeves on stage?  That's Delia Knox.  Notice what's missing?  A wheel chair.  Notice how she is getting around the stage?  She is walking.  

You can see her testimony here: 

You think her walking around after her spinal cord was severed 22 1/2 years ago isn't evidence?  Just because you can't medically explain it, doesn't mean our eyes are lying to us - the woman is walking!!!!  You are indeed begging the question.  You are essentially arguing that 'if I don't agree with it, and I can't explain it, it didn't happen."  That's bull.  

The difference with your T-Rex analogy is that  we found the woman who was in the wheel chair up walking around.  We never found the T-Rex.  Again, hard to argue that healings and miracles don't happen when the blind are walking around seeing, the deaf are hearing, and the lame are walking around.  

You said "Evidence is made valid by it being verifiable and testable. "  Then you will be happy to know that it is verified that the woman who was paralyzed for 22 1/2 years is walking around (watch the video link).  You can test it frame by frame if you like.  Feel free to search her story on the internet - Delia Knox.  You can test and see if she is standing and walking too.  Where you have made a false assumption is that you can then create your own miracle or healing. If God is the source of these, until you are God, you can't do what He can do.

For instance, we still cannot explain how Uranium is produced in this Universe: we have theories well backed by numerical simulations and various indirect observations, but we do not have enough data to constrain those theories sufficiently to explain why the amount of produced Uranium is what it is - furthermore, there have been several stars observed that have an abnormal ratio of Uranium and Thorium, something that defies all current theories. Some of my colleagues have worked on this problem and made some progress, but it is still largely terra incognita. This is, however, something that is absolutely a subject to scientific inquiry, and no serious physicist will ever say, "Oh, we cannot explain this at the moment, so there must be some magic involved".

There are no medical explanations for the miracles I've provided.  You are begging the question (which I keep pointing out to you) when you say - "well one day we will find a scientific explanation for miracles".  The fact is you have not.  There is no scientific explanation.  But there is an explanation - God did it.  To claim that is invalid to infer from the evidence of  something science can't explain, would be you begging the question yet again.  

I will make a huge assumption here that the unspecified individuals in the studies are real and one could contact them upon request made of the authors and approved of the individuals; strictly speaking, there is no evidence that the described phenomena took place in reality

And you would be proven wrong.  In the case of 

Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer

The 18 year old girl was medically diagnosed with juvenile macular degeneration (JMD) after becoming legally blind in both eyes within 3 months of each other.  There is a clear medical record and timeline kept from the onset of blindness ( 1959).  In 1960 her vision was measured at 7/200 in each eye.  Not only did medical doctor's measure her vision, but so did the school of the blind.  After approximately 13 years of blindness, her husband prayed for her.  Her eyesight returned.  From the scientific journal:

The first written documentation of her visual acuity after this incident was on a prescription pad note showing an improvement in the VA. In 1974 her visual acuity was 20/100 in each eye without correction (a dramatic increase of more than 400% in visual acuity) on 6/14/1974 previous recorded visual acuities were of FC OD (finger counting in the right eye) and HM OS (hand movement in the left eye) on 1/29/1971, then HM in both eyes on 1/18/1972. (Fig. S4). There was no report of corrected VA in 1974. In 2001, the patient had a formal eye examination in order to get new glasses. At that time, her corrected visual acuities were 20/40 in each eye (Fig. S5).

The report provides lots of medical discussion of her condition (even images of her corneas).  Several alternate 'answers' are put forward for consideration such as a placebo effect or nutritional interventions, and are found inadequate explanations.  The only thing that seems to fit the evidence is - wait for it - prayer.  

Aside from that, I will have to come back to my earlier point (I will not mention the fact that the papers these studies are published in are... not exactly reputable, that the first two have the same leading authors and the third is done in a broken up country in which no practical verification of cited evidence is realistically possible: it is beside the point, although it is quite symptomatic) -

Really?  The Southern Medical Journal is an unreputable medical journal?  You know you are drowning when you are grasping at straws like that.  But if you didn't like those then take the ones from Sage, Pub Med, JAMA, Harvard, and Stanford that I've also posted above.  I don't think you have even looked at the studies I've provided as evidence.  

Let me just quote the Stanford and Harvard professor/lecturer, Marilyn Schilitz

In the recent National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) survey study I mentioned, a significantly high percentage of the population makes use of prayer for other people. Many people believe that if I pray for you, you will become better, or if you pray for me I'll become better, and yet we know very little of the mechanism to explain how this might happen. So this is a frontier area for research. To date, more than 180 studies have been done in this area, with more than half of them producing significant results. In these experiments, one person through their intention tries to influence the physiology or the physical condition of a target system, such as cell cultures, animal models, and there are human studies. As of March 2004, there have been nine controlled clinical trials looking at intercessory prayer (compassionate intention at a distance). Six of these have produced statistically significant positive results. For a complete list of these studies, one can visit the distant healing research site at the Institute of Noetic Sciences Web site (www.noetic.org). - Marilyn Schlitz, Meditation, Prayer and Spiritual Healing: The Evidence

Now Stanford and Harvard may not be the best credentials, but they aren't shabby ones.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

You are once again begging the question.  Just because you can't replicate something, doesn't mean that what you see isn't real - such as a miracle.  Do you know how weak this argument is.  You are saying that someone shouldn't believe their eyes.

I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth; I respect you enough not to do that to you and expect you to reciprocate. I explicitly said this:
"If someone claims to have seen a T-Rex in the Central Park of New York City, there better be something that others can do to make sure that a T-Rex has disturbed something in the park in a way that no other creature feasibly could do; otherwise, even if the person's claim in reality happens to be true, anyone assuming it to be true based on the person's words alone makes a serious epistemological mistake."
I am talking about what one should treat as being real, not what is actually real. There is a subset of phenomena that might be real, but no verifiable evidence of which has been collected - as I said, epistemologically it does not make sense to assume it to be real, even though it is.

As for "believing their eyes"... Eyes provide sensory visual information, not facts. That information has to be interpreted before one can believe anything at all. You can go to Thailand, talk to a beautiful girl and adore her face - and then hear from her that she actually is a transsexual guy. What you see with your eyes does not constitute scientific evidence, and it is not data that anyone can replicate, for only you can see with your eyes and others cannot see with your eyes.

Regarding your "Deila Knox" case, it appears to be a widely known scam: she has refused to release her medical records and her claims of being paralyzed for 22.5 years have not been documented by anyone - anyone can sit in a wheelchair and pretend to be disabled. She herself has claimed to have suffered a head injury rather than a spinal cord injury. Seems to be a usual "miracle healing performance" in front of a gullible audience.
If this guy really can heal such debilitating conditions on stage, it seems strange that he does not have thousands clients lining up to be healed. Why will he not go to a hospital with a bunch of patients with spinal cord injuries and pray for them? Oh, but this way he cannot make a show out of it and collect the greens, can he?

If this is the kind of "evidence" your claims rely on, you are walking on a very shaky ground. It is almost the Nigerian prince level of gullibility.

just_sayin said:

There are no medical explanations for the miracles I've provided.  You are begging the question (which I keep pointing out to you) when you say - "well one day we will find a scientific explanation for miracles".  The fact is you have not.  There is no scientific explanation.  But there is an explanation - God did it.  To claim that is invalid to infer from the evidence of  something science can't explain, would be you begging the question yet again.  

Given the quality of the evidence you are citing, at this point I seriously doubt that any of the events you claim have no medical explanation actually took place. Regardless, as I said, the fact that science cannot explain something at the moment does not necessitate immediately jumping to myths and religious stories.

"God did it" is as good an explanation as "Chupakabra did it". It does not explain anything; it is a completely meaningless statement that can be appended to anything. How did Debateisland come to be? "God did it". Why is 2+2=4? "God did it". How do cars run? "God does it".

just_sayin said:

And you would be proven wrong.  In the case of 

Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer

The 18 year old girl was medically diagnosed with juvenile macular degeneration (JMD) after becoming legally blind in both eyes within 3 months of each other.  There is a clear medical record and timeline kept from the onset of blindness ( 1959).  In 1960 her vision was measured at 7/200 in each eye.  Not only did medical doctor's measure her vision, but so did the school of the blind.  After approximately 13 years of blindness, her husband prayed for her.  Her eyesight returned.  From the scientific journal:

The first written documentation of her visual acuity after this incident was on a prescription pad note showing an improvement in the VA. In 1974 her visual acuity was 20/100 in each eye without correction (a dramatic increase of more than 400% in visual acuity) on 6/14/1974 previous recorded visual acuities were of FC OD (finger counting in the right eye) and HM OS (hand movement in the left eye) on 1/29/1971, then HM in both eyes on 1/18/1972. (Fig. S4). There was no report of corrected VA in 1974. In 2001, the patient had a formal eye examination in order to get new glasses. At that time, her corrected visual acuities were 20/40 in each eye (Fig. S5).

The report provides lots of medical discussion of her condition (even images of her corneas).  Several alternate 'answers' are put forward for consideration such as a placebo effect or nutritional interventions, and are found inadequate explanations.  The only thing that seems to fit the evidence is - wait for it - prayer.  

What is the name of this girl? Can I talk to her, look at her medical records, perform a few scans on her body? I cannot find anything concrete in the paper. Regardless, as I said, "I will make a huge assumption..." You are responding to my comment as if it did not contain this assumption, which makes no logical sense.

I will also add, as someone who has worked with some medical data, that case reports are not treated as evidence of anything, but merely serve as a starting point for a serious examination. A serious examination would involve some sort of controlled trials with multiple subjects. Not respecting this while participating in such a discussion is quite embarrassing.

just_sayin said:

Really?  The Southern Medical Journal is an unreputable medical journal?  You know you are drowning when you are grasping at straws like that.  But if you didn't like those then take the ones from Sage, Pub Med, JAMA, Harvard, and Stanford that I've also posted above.  I don't think you have even looked at the studies I've provided as evidence.  

Let me just quote the Stanford and Harvard professor/lecturer, Marilyn Schilitz

In the recent National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) survey study I mentioned, a significantly high percentage of the population makes use of prayer for other people. Many people believe that if I pray for you, you will become better, or if you pray for me I'll become better, and yet we know very little of the mechanism to explain how this might happen. So this is a frontier area for research. To date, more than 180 studies have been done in this area, with more than half of them producing significant results. In these experiments, one person through their intention tries to influence the physiology or the physical condition of a target system, such as cell cultures, animal models, and there are human studies. As of March 2004, there have been nine controlled clinical trials looking at intercessory prayer (compassionate intention at a distance). Six of these have produced statistically significant positive results. For a complete list of these studies, one can visit the distant healing research site at the Institute of Noetic Sciences Web site (www.noetic.org). - Marilyn Schlitz, Meditation, Prayer and Spiritual Healing: The Evidence

Now Stanford and Harvard may not be the best credentials, but they aren't shabby ones.

Its impact factor is 0.81... It is complete junk from the perspective of the generally accepted scientific literature standards. Pub Med is a database storing references to scientific literature; it is not a source journal. Harvard and Stanford are universities. Impact factor of Sage is ~2.0
You do not appear to know much about the nature of the sources you cite. 

I am not sure how a quote from one professor is supposed to redeem it or constitute any kind of evidence. One of my favorite professors once said something like, "Never criticize yourself; others will do it for you. You must be the best advocate for yourself". Should I sing it as gospel now?

In case you are actually interested in learning about said standards of quality, so you can be more selective with your sources and not cite complete junk, here is where you can see impact factors of most reputable medical journals: https://research.com/journals-rankings/medicine Even the 2,000-th journal on that list still has a bigger impact factor than either Sage or Southern Medical Journal.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
Regarding your "Deila Knox" case, it appears to be a widely known scam: she has refused to release her medical records and her claims of being paralyzed for 22.5 years have not been documented by anyone - anyone can sit in a wheelchair and pretend to be disabled. She herself has claimed to have suffered a head injury rather than a spinal cord injury. Seems to be a usual "miracle healing performance" in front of a gullible audience.

I am having a blast with this topic! Thank you for claiming Delia Knox's healing was a scam.  No doubt you took the desperate words of some atheist who didn't know the facts or evidence of the case.  Let me walk through some of the evidence for you:

She was paralyzed from the waist down on Christmas Day 1987.  Here is an image of the car accident from CBN taken from footage of a local news crew who ran the story the day after it happened on the local TV News:


She was indeed paralyzed for 22 1/2 years.  Here is video of her in 1990:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njbj5_0XwgY

So are you saying she played a 22 1/2 year scam?  Because she won't walk again until August 2010.

Here is a picture of her wedding to Bishop Levy Knox in 2001.  



Wow!  That's about 9 years before her healing.  She is taking this scam thing really, really far.

According to news group AL.com she did a news interview in 2008 - where she was still paralyzed.

In a 2008 interview with the Press-Register, she told the newspaper that she was approaching the 20th anniversary of her paralysis with the same spirit she told prisoners they should have when she ministered to them.

Here's video of Delia seeing her parents for the first time since she could walk in October 2010.  They sure do seem emotional to see her walking.  Are you going to argue that they were in on the scam too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0F7vhWHgy0

Delia is a gospel singer, so there are literally hundreds of videos over the 22 1/2 year period of her in her wheel chair.  Now is it more likely that she was truly paralyzed for 22 1/2 years, as numerous news organizations have claimed, or is it more likely the faith claim of skeptics is true and this was a scam?  

Here's an example from the Daily Mail UK of articles that were run after her healing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340497/I-walked-walked-I-felt-like-I-entered-realm-Woman-paralysed-23-years-ago-cured-British-spiritual-healer.html

I doubt atheists would abandon their faith claim that there are no miracles, no matter what evidence is provided.  I am genuinely curious - what medical condition miraculously heals itself after 22 1/2 years? (Hint: There is one known other example - PUH lease mention it so I can drop another bomb shell on you!).   Are you claiming its psychosomatic?  What is your faith claim here? 

ALL EVIDENCE says Delia Knox has been truthful about her paralysis and her healing.  If you think your faith claims are false, then please show YOUR EVIDENCE.  Currently, there isn't any.

here is where you can see impact factors of most reputable medical journals: https://research.com/journals-rankings/medicine 

First, thanks for the website.  I can see where it could be a valuable resource.  I do want to point out to you that this site is a ranking based on impact.  Specifically, scientists vote for the journals themselves.  It does not necessarily correlate with reliability, but more with popularity among scientists and their perceptions.  You can have highly ranked journals that have had many articles retracted and disproven.  You have attacked the journals that printed the prayer studies, which seems like attacking the messenger to me.  The lead researcher for the summary of prayer studies is the professor/lecturer at Harvard and Stanford.  It is certainly fine to talk about weaknesses about individual studies.  However, it seems a weak argument to me to dismiss the bulk of research in the area of prayer out of hand because you don't like the journal it appears in.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Let me know when you are finished with MayCaesar. I have plenty to say, but will wait.

@just_sayin

I don't want to overwhelm or dogpile you. So I will wait until you are ready.

just_sayin

@Dreamer
I don't want to overwhelm or dogpile you. So I will wait until you are ready. 

I love dogpiles.  No problem.  MayCaesar provided no evidence for his claims.  Hopefully, you'll have a better argument.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I am afraid you have not addressed any of the points you quoted, as well as other related points. There are people who use wheelchairs, but who are not paralyzed - and who can walk without wheelchairs for brief periods of time. Using a wheelchair for 22.5 years to move around does not imply being paralyzed whatsoever, and refusal to release medical records for someone making such big claims is quite symptomatic.

I cannot be expected to provide evidence against claims that, in turn, lack evidence to support them. Just as I am not willing to provide any evidence that the next "Nigerian prince" that emails me is a scam artist, I am not willing to do that here - and I expect some solid evidence from you. More solid than what you so far have presented.

just_sayin said:

I doubt atheists would abandon their faith claim that there are no miracles, no matter what evidence is provided.  I am genuinely curious - what medical condition miraculously heals itself after 22 1/2 years? (Hint: There is one known other example - PUH lease mention it so I can drop another bomb shell on you!).   Are you claiming its psychosomatic?  What is your faith claim here? 

I think your question answers itself: nothing "miraculously heals itself". The whole concept of something happening inherently miraculously makes zero epistemological sense. If there is an unknown phenomenon, then it can be studied and there is no miracle here, even if at the moment no one understands it; if there is no such phenomenon, then there is nothing to talk about. There is no third option.
Your claims about "god's intervention" are not claims about miracles; they are claims about there existing a certain phenomenon in nature that can be studied scientifically. That you then follow up by saying that it cannot be studied scientifically because it is supernatural to me says that you are quite confused about your own claims.

Me, I do not make "faith claims", and that there are no miracles is a purely logical conclusion: I have just guided you through the logic, and at no point do I resort to making any assumptions that cannot be logically or scientifically verified. Aside from that, I realize that there can be phenomena in nature that lay far outside the current scientific knowledge, and it is quite possible that there are mechanisms of repairing damage of biological systems that do not require sophisticated technology to enact, yet are extremely difficult to explain - unlike religious people like yourself, I do not make any claims about me knowing more about the world than I can demonstrate to do.

What I do make here is epistemological claims. Unfortunately, you have failed to address them directly, instead responding to something I have never said - strategy common for people who know deep inside that their belief systems are built on quicksand and cannot accept a fair challenge to them.

just_sayin said:

First, thanks for the website.  I can see where it could be a valuable resource.  I do want to point out to you that this site is a ranking based on impact.  Specifically, scientists vote for the journals themselves.  It does not necessarily correlate with reliability, but more with popularity among scientists and their perceptions.  You can have highly ranked journals that have had many articles retracted and disproven.  You have attacked the journals that printed the prayer studies, which seems like attacking the messenger to me.  The lead researcher for the summary of prayer studies is the professor/lecturer at Harvard and Stanford.  It is certainly fine to talk about weaknesses about individual studies.  However, it seems a weak argument to me to dismiss the bulk of research in the area of prayer out of hand because you don't like the journal it appears in.

Well, the property discussed above was "reputability", and the impact factor pretty much quantifies it. I do not disagree that impact factor alone does not indicate the quality of the journal, but that is a separate discussion.

I also have not "attacked" anything. That prayers do have positive effect on human organism in certain cases is something I have openly said myself in a separate thread: it is a very well documented phenomenon. What is not very well documented (or at all) is that it has something to do with any supernatural phenomena.
In making the case that the former implies the validity of the latter you are falling prey to the same phenomenon that Richard Feynman called a "cargo cult": people seeing a natural phenomenon, but, due to lack of understanding it, attributing it to influence of some supernatural powers - and using superficial aspects of the phenomenon to try to induce it. 
This error is as old as humanity, and it was recognized by early Enlightenment thinkers and its recognition was one of the key milestones allowing for the industrialization to take off. Religion, however, has not kept up with the cutting edge philosophy, so this error is still prevalent among its proponents.




I will add to everything I said above that many theists criticize scam artists claiming to be able to heal someone through prayer, or to get the "god" to do something for them by asking it for a favor, for making their religions appear ridiculous. Many protestants specifically find the idea of "god" bestowing favors left and right to be an extreme display of arrogance and narcissism, and believe that it is not communion of a lowly mammal with allegedly the most powerful being in existence (and outside of it) that constitutes a worthwhile religious pursuit, but striving to be a better man, doing good deeds and being humble about one's place in the world.

Those protestants would find your defense of these "miracle" cases to be extremely insulting - and, probably, would have much more of an issue with it than I do. So no, it is not just "atheists" who have qualms with your claims.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar
I am afraid you have not addressed any of the points you quoted, as well as other related points. There are people who use wheelchairs, but who are not paralyzed - and who can walk without wheelchairs for brief periods of time. Using a wheelchair for 22.5 years to move around does not imply being paralyzed whatsoever, and refusal to release medical records for someone making such big claims is quite symptomatic

It sounds like your faith claim has shifted somewhat.   Your absurd faith claim that she faked paralysis for twenty-two years for the sake of later claiming healing was obliterated by overwhelming documented proof that she was confined to a wheel chair for 22 1/2 years.  Your faith claim seems to have shifted.   You are still claiming she wasn't paralyzed,

There is overwhelming evidence of her prior condition and her healing.   Her story has been reported in hundreds of news outlets.  such as AL.com, Buffalo News, Mobile Alabama News, CBN, Daily Beast, Daily Mail, and many more news outlets reported that she was paralyzed for 22 1/2 years.  I even saw one from India that had reported on her story.  You have seen the videos, or at least you should have.  That is evidence of a definite change - going from paralyzed to walking on her own in just a short time (there is a 3 week difference in the healing service and when she steps on the stage and leads worship - in that second video if you watch it all she gives a 30 minute testimonial of her condition).

A former staff pastor at Knox's home church in Buffalo, Bob Tice, recounted that he would have to help lift her up onto the stage, and that she could not move her legs at all.  Bishop Tommy Reid, Knox's former pastor, confirmed her paralysis and her healing.   Here is an image of the 84 year old bishop, testifying of Delia Knox's healing in August 2016.



If you watched the CBN clip above then you know that Delia Knox's own testimony is that she did not have any feeling or ability to move her own legs and was paralyzed from the waist down.  You have again made faith claims that she wasn't paralyzed without any evidence.  I've provided video, eye witness testimony, news clips, pictures, etc.  You provided nothing but a bogus faith claim that you bitterly cling to.

You have, again, without evidence, suggested that she wasn't paralyzed.  Yet no one who knew Delia Knox, from her doctors, family, and friends, have contradicted her story at all.  In fact EVERYONE has confirmed her story. if you disagree, then provide that evidence.  You can read more of their accounts, since you claim they never verified her claims, in Craig Keener's book Miracles Today where you will see that your claim falls apart yet again.  What will you turn to next?  Were the doctors paid off?  Was this a 22 1/2 year old scam to get money?  It will undoubtedly be without any evidence, as your past claims have been.

If there is an unknown phenomenon, then it can be studied and there is no miracle here, even if at the moment no one understands it; if there is no such phenomenon, then there is nothing to talk about. There is no third option.

Again, I keep repeating myself.  You are begging the question.  You say this can't be a miracle because miracles don't exist.  Yet the evidence says she was healed.

What is not very well documented (or at all) is that it has something to do with any supernatural phenomena.

And yet, I have provided you video of a woman who was paralyzed from the waist down for 22 1/2 years getting up and walking at a revival service.  I have provided you with several medical journals that attest to healing of the blind, deaf, and lame after prayer.  i have cited eye witnesses that attest to these events.  The truth is that there is evidence but you pretend it isn't there.  The honest truth is that no matter what evidence is provided you will cling to your faith claim that there are no healings and miracles.  

I will add to everything I said above that many theists criticize scam artists claiming to be able to heal someone through prayer, or to get the "god" to do something for them by asking it for a favor, for making their religions appear ridiculous. 

I am sure there are scam artists, but to claim all reports of healings and miracles are fake is an illogical leap.  You have engaged in slandering Delia Knox as a scam artist without any evidence to contradict her testimony.  Just who is displaying less than ethical conduct here?  I don't think it is Delia Knox.  

Dee

@just_sayin


Convieniently there appear to be no medical records for this particular case, preventing a more rigorous analysis, whys that?

just_sayin

@Dee

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.  You ask for doctor's reports.  I provided 2 medical journal studies that have lots of cited doctor's information and you still cling to your faith claim that there are no miracles.  Please go back and look at:

Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer

and

Case Report of gastroparesis healing: 16 years of a chronic syndrome resolved after proximal intercessory prayer

Since, you didn't believe the doctor's evidence then, why should I believe you will believe the evidence now?  

Dee

@just_sayin

**
Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.  You ask for doctor's reports**

Wow! It's " hypocrisy " now to question your unfounded assertions.....hilarious.

Yes where are the Doctors reports For Knoxx?


**  I provided 2 medical journal studies that have lots of cited doctor's information **

Where have you posted Knoxxs medical records?

**and you still cling to your faith claim that there are no miracles.**

Faith is believing something you have lack.of evidence for that's not me but you, post up Koxxs medical records?

Watch him run folks he cannot post up what doesn't exist


  

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I can tell that you do not have much experience facing serious opposition in a discussion, for you have not learned to avoid the most basic pitfalls, cheap tactics that a serious audience will spot in a heartbeat. For instance, you keep calling what I said a "faith claim", hoping that repeating it a few times makes it stick. I am happy to report that things like this have no effect on me and only make you come across as desperate and lazy, unwilling to seriously wrestle with the challenges to your position I have posed.

My claim has not shifted; it only appears to you that it has because you did not read carefully what I said. I never said that she "faked her paralysis". What I did say is that there is no solid evidence of her having been paralyzed, and the lack of publicly released medical records makes it absolutely impossible to verify any of the claims she has made. I have no clue what her condition was and is. I do have a clue on what constitutes solid evidence and what does not, and nothing you have presented so far does. Certainly you do not think that mass media entities that simply report her claims are a medical authority, do you? All we have are words of different people about her condition; we do not have anything tangible, anything verifiable. It is all hearsay.

just_sayin said:

Again, I keep repeating myself.  You are begging the question.  You say this can't be a miracle because miracles don't exist.  Yet the evidence says she was healed.

It does not, as I have explained on numerous occasions. On a side note, I find it strange that you keep clinging to this one story that resembles so much all the countless scams that have been exposed by religious groups themselves not wanting to be associated with those charlatans. Is this really the hill you want to position your defense on?

just_sayin said:

And yet, I have provided you video of a woman who was paralyzed from the waist down for 22 1/2 years getting up and walking at a revival service.  I have provided you with several medical journals that attest to healing of the blind, deaf, and lame after prayer.  i have cited eye witnesses that attest to these events.  The truth is that there is evidence but you pretend it isn't there.  The honest truth is that no matter what evidence is provided you will cling to your faith claim that there are no healings and miracles.  

We have gone over all these things already. What you and me think "evidence" means are very different things, apparently. I have also never made the claim that "there are no healings"; I have said that there are no miracles, and that claim is derived from pure logic and has absolutely nothing to do with any "faith". There are phenomena that (at the moment) science cannot explain, and many of them have been documented - existence of these phenomena neither suggests their divine origin, nor implies that every time someone makes claims about a phenomenon that science cannot explain, that phenomenon actually exists.

just_sayin said:

I am sure there are scam artists, but to claim all reports of healings and miracles are fake is an illogical leap.  You have engaged in slandering Delia Knox as a scam artist without any evidence to contradict her testimony.  Just who is displaying less than ethical conduct here?  I don't think it is Delia Knox.  

Stop lying, man. First, I have not claimed that "all reports... are fake". Second, I did not call Delia Knox "a scam artist".

Third, try to put some effort into reading what your opponents say. It is getting tiresome to again and again correct your reading of simple text, as if I was an elementary school teacher working with a challenged student.