"inexplicable scientifically and medically" is a very weak basis for claiming anything as significant as a 'miracle'.

Inexplicable results are seen all the time in scientific research - no miracle claims. Either errors in investigation, assumptions, etc, or insufficient current knowledge, or occasionally pointing to a need for an new theory.

Then you have a vote. Which further weakens the strength of any judgement.

What a joke.

Get a leg to grow back perfectly and you'll have something to talk about.

No alternative approach available, or required. 

I was in no way referring to the medical staff possibly being unaware of the availability of a cure. Total red herring.

"either we have a cure for it or we don't or either our immune systems can defeat it or it can't, = Absolutely, totally wrong.

Biology is complex, all diseases, all individual instances of a disease, all individual humans have different inherited make-up, and different life-histories. There may or may not be a known workable cure, but that doesn't mean it will always work, or that it is impossible for someone to recover without it, even if highly unlikely.

If anything takes years like that, is that complex, has a high probability of uncertainty, therefore CANNOT be taken as certain, therefore cannot justify being taken as a clear example of something as important and transcendent as the intervention of a deity.

Miracles intrinsically are unprovable - there is no alternativer technique. Like the "God of the Gaps", only 'works' if you assume a current mystery will never be explained naturally, an impossible thing to know in advance.

In any case, they are actually evidence that if there is a God, He is NOT good. He appears to only 'cure' a few people, as stunts, which his fan-boys can use as 'evidence' for Him.

If he was genuinely 'good' and cared for us, those diseases would not exist in the first place, or he would cure everybody who contracted them. Or at the very least, everyone who honestly prayed to him. Are you seriously suggesting that only the few 'miraculous' cures are all he can do?

Divine intervention would not be limited in any way by how difficult or impossible current medical science finds it to trea a disease.

And don't bother quoting scripture - you judge someone's virtue by their actions, not their words.

Cap, you have flimsy evidence, at best, for the existence of a God, and none at all for a benevolent, caring one. This 'miracle' counts more against a caring God than a 'good' one.

just clarifying

if it was known to be possible for the body to defeat on it's own, even in rare cases, that would have been taken into consideration and would be "medical knowledge" therefore rendering the situation not a miracle.  

OR.... it could be in this case... just as in many other cases, part of it is the process, but they're also waiting for the disease to resurface deeming it not cured and deeming the situation not a miracle... they also have to wait until the alleged saint dies before deeming them a saint and therefore the investigation is not rushed, which allows for more careful inspection of each piece of information.

when God is not taken into consideration as a possible cause

so in any case, you're claiming you know why God cured certain individuals and the reasoning behind it as well as why others were not cured and the future outcome of each alternative outcome... otherwise, this is ignoratio elenchi.

you know this for sure... you know how they started and spread and how if God was there he didn't intervene?  Are you sure about this?  Another ignoratio elenchi.... and no that's not ignoring your point, but you're speculating here and it brings no progress to the point. 

of course it's not which is why cures of incurable diseases, especially instantanious ones are miracles and not medical.

"...and on the first day..."  oh! ... uh.. sorry.

in speculation only.  Unless you can elaborate on this knowledge you seem to be claiming to have.  This being the understanding of why some might have been missed and the alternative outcomes of each.  

Right now I'm not tying to show God to be good or bad.  the fact that the "audience" if you will doesn't believe in my God in the first place makes that point irrelevant.   If you ever come to the conclusion that this God does exist, then we'll talk about whether He's good or bad.  

Cap,

I am not claiming to know anything specific about God.

I am merely pointing out alternatives that are at least logically possible, and arguably more plausible possibilities. Believers are the ones claiming to know with certainty about God's real motives and capabilities, and ignoring other possible interpretations of what we observe about the world this alleged God allegedly created.

Your position is at least as speculative as anything I have said.

Scripture is just words, claims, from a collection of writings containing many demonstrated historical errors. It does not remotely deserve to be treated as a source of solid evidence for anything except what those guys thought had occurred, not observable, confirmable actions.

"Inexplicable" can only be in the context of current science. It can never mean absolutely inexplicable - some new discovery could be made tomorrow that shows how it could happen. So it should not be used to justify any absolute confirmation of 'miracle'. So such miracle claims can only ever be speculation, not confirmed.

For anyone to claim otherwise is dishonest.

which is a summary and that was explained to you right off so that you could use it to further your investigation into debunking the miracle claims.

For the Consulta... you fail to take into consideration that all the above as well as interviews with all the people involved can be and are revisited by each department and is cross examined by neutral entities.

Do you really need me to define those words for you?  Ok

Rapid:  Quick

Complete:  gone without a trace

Lasting:  No remission (one reason why it takes years to confirm)

inexplicable:  cannot be explained... not by Jcgadfly's standards, but literally cannot be explained by current medical and scientific knowledge.

This last part is hard for me to believe... I mean are you really not thinking or are you just messing with me.  You quoted; "by current medical and scientific knowledge" not by the current knowledge of the Consulta, so how can you question whether the consulta's knowledge is current?  it says so right in the text!  Oh, I get it, you're taking it as the Consulta making that claim and therefore if their knowledge isn't current, they'd still claim it is not realizing it's not... Ok, please reference sources so i can investigate that claim further as well... I have not seen that evidence or reasoning to accept that claim yet.

After evidences and interviews have been extensively investigated... unless you believe that's how the American court system works...."case number 45 on the docket... the accused is being tried for a brutal murder... Who in the jury believes he's guilty?  Raise your hands.  majority says he's guilty, life without parole..." I guess if I didn't know what i know about the court system and didn't investigate it futher, I could easily assume that's how it works.  It'd make jury duty a lot less painful... still would wonder why it takes so long then to just have people raise their hands for an answer.

Dude, admit it, you've got nothing without investigating.  You can come up with as many conspiracy theories as you want, but people on here are not dumb and neither am I.  Nice try though, but you're insulting the intelligence of everyone who follows this thread.  You're now doing exactly what you've been trying to accuse me of doing many times before... Are you a Hypocrite much?  

I know

We know his capabilities... to what extent we don't know, but we know he's capable of a lot... Motives are made clear in scripture IF YOU TAKE THE SCRIPTURE AS A WHOLE IN CONTEXT and not pull out bits and pieces to show your idealism.  This is how religion starts.  

based on scripture?  I'd agree with you except for what is based off of personal experience... as to which I cannot back up other than by using the other people who experienced what i had with me, which is hardly evidence for anyone who wasn't there unless you trust us completely to be honest and truthful.  

I'd say I'm running through the Bible from a historical point of view as we speak with a very credible historical nonbeliever.  So far we have agreed all the errors he has brought up is congruent with historical writings of that time and in no way has discredited the stories as true in history.  His only case at this point is that they're story telling and it's difficult to find evidences of the stories being told to be true in history,.  As to which I'd agree, though there are still some evidences of those stories being true in history and so far no evidences have been brought up that would take place of that timeline.  

Beyond that, it is agreed upon by scholars that some of what's written in the Bible was in fact eye-witness accounts.  of course we can't observe any of it today, but it's just as confirmable as any other history from that time.  Some may have more artifacts, but all stories that have been discredited have a clear source of reasoning, including a timeline that takes the place of the story in question or a source for the origination of the story other than an actual event.  

Sure, from the scientific knowledge, but if it did have a future explanation on how it happens that would easily be understood, then a lot more people would be randomly healed from these aledgedly deadly diseases as well.  This would be seen and from that point deemed not a miracle because other healings just like this would have happened without prayer or a source of Godly interaction.  

It's more about the correlation of events and not so much the healing itself, though that has to be taken into consideration as well to be deemed a miracle.  

With that said, understand that i"m trying to take the same perspective as you, be it that I am trying to point out alternatives that could likely be possible and take a logical approach to the subject.  Any good reasoning to an alternative to what I believe I take into serious consideration and I cross reference with many sources, people included.  I don't take anyone's word on anything just as you...

You do not, and cannot, know the capabilities of such an imagined being, so utterly beyond the scale and nature of anything we experience, and so beyond our finite and fallible minds. You can only speculate. That is a really fundamentally fallacy on your part. Scripture is equally compatible with a God only concerned to deceive us, to play with us. To detect the real motives of such a being would require truly 'infallible' minds, necessarily having similar capabilities, on some level, superior to that of God.

Scripture cannot verify itself, any reference to it, without very solid empirical backing is of zero significance.

Persoonal experience similarly, even if shared. Without objective empirical verification, anything becomes 'knowable'. Every conceivable religion becomes justifiable on such a basis.

Little, if anything, in scripture is direct eye-witness accounts recorded immediately at the event, or very shortly after. Eye-witness accounts, especially of unusual events, are notoriously unreliable, and rapidly go downhill from there as time passes between the event and writing it down. So that is more very shaky justification

You are taking the word of the writers of scripture...

You have no warrant at all to assume that an ultimate explanation that may be found is likely to be "easily understood", especially if we see very few of these events occurring. IOW the fact that we see very few such events is a strong indication that it will not be simple. Especially in the context of biological processes, which are among the most complex we know of. So your first argument is backward - that observation supports my position, not yours.

Of course you have to cross-reference and correlate as much as possible, I assumed that. But that can never justify confidence that there is no possible explanation, only, at most, add support for some specific explanation, not an absence of explanation, which is all you have. "GodDidIt" is simply an expression of ignorance , not a claim.

And there is evidence that such events do occur in the absence of any prayer or hint of Godly intervention. But those are never going to be seized upon by religious authorities to be investigated, since they are not going to support their position. And what are the statistics on prayers and/or saintly intervention which didn't work?? Surely you are not claiming that every such appeal always results in cure, so if not, how many times has it not worked, in comparison to the number of full successes? You certainly cannot claim to have seriously and honestly investigated the cases without such data. Look for dis-confirmation at least as diligently as you do for support, it is the essence of science.

Spontaneous remission does definitely occur in even apparently serious conditions, even if rarely.

The highly respected Robert Winston -  a British professor, medical doctor, scientist, and television presenter, a traditional Jew with an orthodox background - did an excellent TV documentary series on religion which included looking into a number of famous 'miracles', and confessed he could find no warrant for their claims, and noted that for many, or even most, diseases, spontaneous remission was far more common than miracle 'cures'.

Even if 'genuine' miracles did occur, they would raise serious issues about the morality of the divine intervener, more concerned with preforming the occasional modest stunt than helping the bulk of those afflicted by his faulty handiwork or the nasty disease organisms he let loose on the planet.

You have no case, the evidence points the other way, at every level. 

Rednef after hitting submit, I realize I may have misunderstood your comment.

BUT, that should serve as evidence to Cap, that perceptions can be notoriously flawed, which makes empirical scientific method that much more important.

The difference between Cap and I is that if he had something I would consider it;. I am certainly willing to admit when I am wrong. The same cannot be said for believers.

well... you did toss in your own assertions... and you didn't take the time to research the articles online to find one that might appropriately summarize the process (not easy to find complete details and this one still isn't quite there), so no, I can't admit that.  Reading doesn't require investigating.  Anyone can pick up a paper handed to them and read it, then throw in their own conclusions on it.  sorry dude.  

the point was it's not what happens even for acceptance of miracles.  It's more like a court process

Using the example I did should have given you an idea that I know the process.  I'm telling you what is done.. you're contradicting it as if you've got proof that what I'm saying is not true and yet you come back with nothing.  The article has mentioned bits and pieces of what I have suggested they do, therefore it's not my own assertions being thrown in there, but what is actually claimed to be done.  You can go on all day about this if you want to, but when it comes down to it, I'm going to demand a source from you proving your POV on the subject.  If nothing is presented, then all you have is naked assertions... the one thing you and others have tried to pin on me.  

Those they choose to speak to huh... you act as if they pull names out of a hat or go out onto the street presenting the case to strangers and ask their opinion.  My understanding is they have the most up to date knowledge that is available.  This would likely exclude top secret government type stuff... keep in mind some of those "recently published articles that have not been distributed and research still under peer review"  are from sources in some cases that are in direct contact with them or sometimes are a part of them, so yes, they would have some of that as well.  

You have to keep in mind that to you it's a game, to them, it's a matter of not only the future of a particular person in the eyes of God, but further support of God's work in this world that they know is going to be scrutinized by the non-believing scientific minds of our world.  It's a pretty big deal to declare something a miracle and is not as lax as you'd like it to be to meet your ideals.

i have no attachment to the saints and care not about the Catholic hierarchy.  Miracles is just another avenue I'm using to discuss the possibility of God.. it seems at this point this is one topic that has direct real world proof and no counter evidence for what has been officially declared.   Unless you've been holding out on me... by the way you talk, I think you are.  Spill it... what've you been hiding on us?  Right now this is necessary, otherwise, you look like a hypocrite.

actually, I understand that they do follow the claimant throughout their lives.  Obviously they don't put a tracker on them, but the cases not only take years to confirm and aren't officially confirmed until the alleged Saint has died, but even after if the claimant is still alive, followup through the years is necessary.  

uh... nooooooo... the Saint prayed for them to heal them... not the other way around... The alleged saint will have prayed to God for a healing in a particular individual and then the healing would have had to take place... the families would also pray but not to the saint, only to God.  They may have prayed for the saints prayer or asked for such intervention, but again, prayer was directed to God... did you find this in the article?   I'll have to reread.  Maybe you can quote the text.

Uh, sorry, it's on your shoulders... I have shown you an entity that proves the validity of miracles... I have even researched a summary of the process of this proof... You dont' have to prove it didnt' happen, only show where their process is flawed... and I need a source.    You seem to keep wanting to transfer the burden... it's typical for anyone who has been put in a corner... I should be asking you if the burden is too heavy for you.  

I'm not sure what you're looking for from me at this point... are you expecting me to set up a face to face with the alleged saint and claimant?  I don't believe i am able to do that.  You wanted proof with a source, you got it, the article is written.  You questioned the process, i found a summary that covers all the counters you have tried.  All you've given me as reasoning to doubt is speculation... based on what? I don't know.    Quit crying about it and show your cards.   If you've got nothing, just admit it.  It's not a big deal.

Then start showing some.

You cannot know the attributes of any creator being, not just the extent of them, beyond having sufficient power to create a Universe.

That implies nothing about any other attributes, nothing about ultimate motives, intentions, etc.

And logically it doesn't even require awareness, intelligence - IOW just a sufficient 'natural' force is all that is necessary.

You are just making a series of naked assumptions.

I did not state that, I asked you what evidence you had to the contrary, that prayer increased the likelihood of such remission. To establish that, you need to analyse all the data, ie the 'misses' as well as the 'hits'.

I said that only a minority of spontaneous remissions are identified as 'miracles'. That implies that there is no evidence that prayer is necessary for the occasional spontaneous recovery.

As to people 'suddenly' recovering apparently completely, that need medical proof that a significant internal injury, trauma, organ damage from disease, or similar had disappeared. It would count for infections, which can, in principle, clear up suddenly as the infecting organisms succumb to some change of conditions. And they would need to be followed up to make sure it is a real cure, not just a temporary effect. Like is often seen in 'faith healers', where the strong emotional belief can get them springing up out of their wheel chairs. As often as not, they relapse and sometimes even die within weeks or less.

The fact that many, maybe most, people suffering serious afflictions will have been fervently prayed for, and that only a tiny percentage recover, is ample evidence that most prayer is not answered. The tiny percentage where an argument can be mounted for a true 'miracle' cure supports the more plausible conclusion that spontaneous remissions are not physically impossible, and occasionally occur independently of any supposed divine intervention. 

The extreme rarity of such remissions is absolutely an indictment of God. Not to mention NO regrown limbs. And with or without prayer.

But then you said you do not claim 'God did it'....

Now you are back to claiming only we cannot rule God out as a possible explanation, once we bend and stretch our understanding sufficient to allow for the possibility of your God idea. 

The evidence of massive undeserved suffering in the world, much of it due to natural disasters and diseases built-in to our bodily 'design' or due to 'created' disease organisms, is way more than "speculative cynicism".

Whereas you display naive credulous acceptance of anything that supports your PoV.

That's great... now let's try this... "we know the government's capabilities, but not to the extent that they go.  We know the government uses many processes and don't answer to a being and the results are what we observe now through empirical observation.  The government both produces new things easily and can destroy it just as easily."  

See, i can substitute words too without needing an excuse for another explanation.  Does that mean that perspective is right? Or the only way?  

By stating the above about a being you believe does not exist, are you not making naked assumptions?  

We can know what He has communicated to us, this would be through scripture as well as understanding through a relationship.  Basically to say I "cannot know the attributes of any creator being" is to say you cannot know the attributes of your wife.  Granted the difference is you can have a physical relationship with her, but physicality doesn't necessarily familiarize you with her attributes or ultimate motives, intentions, etc.  Same rule applies.

right, you did not state that.  It seemed implication was there, otherwise there wouldn't have been a purpose for you to question me studying the statistics.  

Not only that though as you just stated, but we'd also have to analyze the state of mind of each person in prayer and the intentions behind each prayer.   We'd also have to make note of any and all prayer for that particular person from any source that might have awareness of the situation and be praying.  Prayer in volumes has been noted to be more effective when the intentions are right.  

The biggest hurtle to get over for effectively and efficiently supporting a study for prayer is the unknown, which is God.  Regardless of what is prayed for and how many and who, God still has a choice as to the outcome of those prayers.  God is not a computer where you can input prayer and get a guaranteed output.  So then to discover that more prayer is not answered, is that a definitive conclusion that there is no God?  Due to the unknown in this study, we are still unable to conclude due to such data.  It's the futile effort of proving a negative.  I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but let's say more prayer is not answered.  That negative outcome does not negate the possibility of God, due to the choice factor.  Instead, the study should focus more on the positive outcomes of prayer and whether those outcomes were really due to prayer or not.   Hence the focus on confirmed miracles.  

Due to the extensive investigation into each miracle and the factor that it is understood that most miracles of God from around the world are likely not reported to a source that 1. would take them seriously and 2.  Would investigate it deep enough to confirm the case, it makes sense that only a minority of spontaneous remissions are identified... AND CONFIRMED as miracles.    Therefore this does not imply that there is no evidence that prayer is necessary for spontaneous recovery.   Beyond that, is there not the possibility also that without prayer, spontaneous recovery could happen through a metaphysical avenue?  This opens up another unknown if in fact this is something to consider.  despite the lack of prayer, any such occurrences always had some sort of spiritual experience that can be reported from what I understand.

which is why the honest investigations and confirmations of miracles takes years and has constant followups.  

The problem is here is there must be support to conclude that there was in fact no divine intervention of any sort due to the healings that have happened outside of prayer, but still with a spiritual interaction.  Again also, the factor of the state of mind and intentions of those praying.   Even more, we'd have to take into consideration the future ramifications of every prayer being answered... also what if there are conflicting prayer, which gets answered and why?  E.g. a dying relative might be suffering greatly, I've known some to pray for a quicker death so that the suffering will stop while others would still pray for healing.  

Future ramifications would include major overpopulation (be it that most would even pray for their dying elderly grandmother to survive their sicknesses and live forever if they could) or particular influences of those individuals that might cause problems on other avenues.  

The questions you have are great.  I dont' know if you realize the investigation on this plane is much much more in depth than anyone has ever done.... or from what I can tell, is capable of doing be it that we have no abilities of studying the future and alternative outcomes at this time. 

well, science is in the process of regrowing limbs with I believe it's a stomach acid or something of the sort from a pig... that in my mind would hardly be a miracle today if in fact they have perfected the science... they were able already to regrow the tip of a mans finger from the joint successfully.  

if we were able to confirm in a day what was a miracle of God and what wasn't or what prayer was answered and what wasn't, I believe you'd find that it's not as rare as the studies show... the problem is we have no way of confirming so quickly, therefore, the literally thousands of miracle submissions that are still under investigation will still take years for even a few of them to be confirmed... this not taking into consideration those that have not been submitted for study.

I love how it's MY god idea.  You're right, I don't claim "God did it." I investigate just as anyone else would on a cause that's not immediately understood, still allowing God to be a possibility among many others.

suffering whether it's undeserved or not is speculatory and subjective.  A family member of a murderer may feel the person murdered justly and that a death penalty or life in prison is undeserved, yet the victims family would disagree of course.   Some things I believe may be undeserved, but then again much of the suffering is caused by mankind outside of natural disasters, therefore we have no one to blame but ourselves for that.  As far as natural disasters, does one live on the coast in an ignorant bliss of the possibility of a hurricane or tsunami hitting them and killing them and their family?  Maybe some do... I don't.  Regardless of the fact that Boston hasn't gotten hit by what would be considered a major hurricane or tsunami in our known history doesn't mean it could never happen and I know that if it does and I lose family, we chose to take that risk regardless of how low.  

I could live in paranoia all my life and frantically drive away from any possibility of a severe storm but driving in itself has its hazards, so which is the safest choice... I guess I should build myself a bomb shelter and make those poor saps who dare to live on the surface restock my food stash every month.  

Enough cynicism.  My point is anything could happen and I'm not going to blame anyone for it because natural disasters aren't anyone's fault, they're my own if I choose to sit out a hurricane or live on the coast period.  If I choose to live in the heartland, I know I'm at risk for tornadoes.   

You've said you want to know what I believe.  I believe God created nature, but that he designed nature to be self sufficient.  In other words, he doesn't run it like a game, he made it so that it runs itself.  If a natural disaster happens, I believe it's because there was an imbalance in the system and nature was just trying to balance it out.  (studies into weather phenomenon supports this)  I do believe that we are at some fault for the severity of the imbalance due to pollution and the increase in temperature extremes due to the pollution.  Are we then to blame for natural disasters?  Eh... maybe, but not likely, because they'd happen anyway, just not as frequent at times possibly.

As for the rest of suffering, e.g.  starvation, wars, etc... we only have ourselves to blame.  Those with billions of dollars could feed a small 3rd world country on their own... if we all pooled in our pocket change, everyone would have food and medical supplies, but we don't.  

So in conclusion, yes there is a lot of undeserved suffering, but there is a lot of deserved suffering.  For the undeserved, we must ask ourselves, am i bias about it being undeserved and could I have helped it.  If no to both, then others might be to blame, but in all I've shown above, there's no logical way we can blame God.  To even conceive blaming God, we'd have to consider the possibility of being puppets in God's hands.  Yes hes' capable of destroying all suffering... but do we really want to be controlled to that extent?  I don't... is that being naive?  

actually, of the 3, i believe the Government is the only one that does in fact command that people stop looking for an explanation.  

Which Bible are you referring to?  The one I've read implies to the reader to constantly check their own understanding of the truth.  

Brian37 wrote:

Merely claiming shit does not make it true.

Will you PLEASE stop with the pathetic projection.

Science does not "make shit up"

Theism has always "made shit up"

You just cant stand that our current scientific knowledge is not propping up your fictional invisible non-material super hero.

The Christian god, nor any of the god/s of Abraham are real. They all come from the same past and were all started in an ignorant age by ignorant people.

You might as well be claiming your pet deity is a giant invisible snail who magically pops out ice cream while orbiting Mars and it would amount to the same "making shit up".

Thougts require a material process. PERIOD. That is not what I claim, that is what science proves. THERE IS NOTHING in evolution that thinks(to whatever degree) that does not have some sort of material to react to the environment around it. Flies have brains. Gods do not because gods don't exist. Not yours not any.

Allah, Jesus, Thor, Apollo are all human inventions an none of them are real. Just like vocanos are not gods. You merely suffer from wishful thinking like every other credulous human who merely wants a super hero.

YOU LOST, accept reality before you waste your entire life on a stupid self inflicted superstition.

is that what I do?  guess I fooled myself... I thought this was an atheist/non-believing site.  my bad

in other words, stop for a moment and realize who you're talking to.  Not stop thinking and just assume.   It'd be like you going up to your boss all concerned about your job security, your boss confirming you're fine and you still frantically questioning it... you're boss likewise could say "be still and know that i'm your boss".  In other words, he has power over your job security and is assuring you you're fine.    don't doubt your bosses abilities.  

In many cases it has been shown that blessings come from gifts to God's purposes... but besides that, you're refrencing to a particular situation where God told a specific peoples to do something and promised an outcome.  It did not say, "to all who put all their tithes into the church I will..."  regardless it still has happened all over the world in many different instances.  Therefore to see that not happen wouldn't be a question to a Christian in the first place because they apparently would be better versed in the scriptures than you are.    It would surprise me however if a whole church followed that expectation that nothing would come out of it.  This of course assuming their hearts were in the right place as well.  

lemme guess... this is me giving God an out and not me giving you scripture as it is literally written.  hmm... interesting perspective... would you not then be manipulating it to meet your ideals in this instance?  

1. So if I saw nothing outside of those links in my investigation and ask you to support your position it's because I haven't looked? It can't be because there is no information? 

2. I'm saying spirits don't exist as I've seen no evidence for them. You're the one saying that spirits can do all these wonderful things based on the petitions of the faithful. The interesting part is that you still make that claim even for the cases where those prayers don't work.

3. So those who are with God aren't other than God? Why pray to them by name then? Distinction without a difference. Remember, the Catholics got rid of the "graven image" commandment.  It's not one of their ten.

4. You claim that if I had actually investigated that I would find that they have countered all my claims and that the miracle claims are beyond reproach because the investigative process is so thorough. Hard to see a difference between that and "absolutely right and perfect". Don't strip those gears reversing your position.

5. I do enjoy those "If you don't agree with me, you're not using your brain" shots - keep them coming. They're amusing coming from the willfully ignorant.

6. I've been debunking the process by asking questions about the flaws in the process - where have you been? Oh yeah, you've been telling me that I haven't been doing research instead of defending your position. support your stance - don't make it easy on me. Oh wait... you don't like to look at opposing views. so much for checking one's understanding". Never mind. 

if that's the case, then it's all you have to say.  I can support was is mentioned in the link.  From other random research over years, i have found the details to be quite thorough under each category.  I don't know if you're having problems finding information whether I'd be able to find any more at this point then.  If anyone has access to resources, you would right?

prayer is not a constant, you can't conclude that because prayers don't always work, that there is no spiritual existence.  I have seen evidence for spiritual existence.  Many others have seen the same, it's basically personal experience as evidence... but research to confirm what I saw is legitimately spiritual.  

yea, Catholics don't get it quite right.

oh no, not doing that.  I only confirmed that research would give you the answers to those questions that you specifically asked... or should I say skeptically asked.  Some of what was asked was answered in the link, others I don't believe should have been too hard to find.    Then again you said you looked and couldn't find anything?  nothing in the library either?  

sadly again you know me better than that.  I want you to disagree, but I want you to back it up and not just blindly disagree without basis.  I like your comment about how you haven't seen any reason to believe there are spirits.  Keep on that plane of thinking, don't make conclusions on things you can't support.

Dude, I had answered some of your questions... but then you complain about taking my word on it.  So I tell you to go find the information yourself.   Make up your mind... do you want me to defend what I have presented or are you going to need more than my word on it?  The best defense is the evidence the opposing side discovers on their own.  

You're so sure you're in the right, give me something to investigate on this that will show me why this process is flawed to the point of discrediting any confirmed miracles by this entity.  

BTW, asking questions does not debunk, it only inquires about details.  The details could debunk, but only if they are contrary to the claim.  So far your only legitimate question about a "flaw" was the healing of an individual by a dead person.  Do you have others?  that was clarified by the understanding of the state of mind of catholics.