Religion?

[CliffEdge]

Accept the fact that science does not tell you what something "is" only how it interacts with your senses.
So what it is and how it manifests, are two different things.
A red cylinder with blue ends can look like a red rectangle or a blue square, depending on your point of view.
What IS an electron? Who knows, it is a math model of behaviour of something. Actually several models which can disagree.
So how it manifests depends on the observer.
Or "form and substance" as philosophy would have it. Noumena and Phenomena as Kant would describe it.

It's good to see you do have at least some understanding of the limits of science. Why you keep on bleating on about it with regard to Faith, beats me.

Lets go over it again. It's really simple. There's no way science can prove you wrong. There's no way science can prove you right.

I think you're talking absolute nonsense about God, miracles and all that stuff but, I accept, that I could be completely wrong but not because of some alleged science twaddle evidence that you keep banging on about by people of dubious background you've found on the net.

[mikewarr]

Accept the fact that science does not tell you what something "is" only how it interacts with your senses.
So what it is and how it manifests, are two different things.
A red cylinder with blue ends can look like a red rectangle or a blue square, depending on your point of view.
What IS an electron? Who knows, it is a math model of behaviour of something. Actually several models which can disagree.
So how it manifests depends on the observer.
Or "form and substance" as philosophy would have it. Noumena and Phenomena as Kant would describe it.

It's good to see you do have at least some understanding of the limits of science. Why you keep on bleating on about it with regard to Faith, beats me.

Lets go over it again. It's really simple. There's no way science can prove you wrong. There's no way science can prove you right.

I think you're talking absolute nonsense about God, miracles and all that stuff but, I accept, that I could be completely wrong but not because of some alleged science twaddle evidence that you keep banging on about by people of dubious background you've found on the net.

And there is the problem summed up in a post.
For the commenters here.

You have no idea what the evidence is , you apparently haven’t researched it.
Or the impeccable credentials of tens of forensic labs and criminal forensic scientists and pathologists who expresssd an opinion on it.
Or the cardiologists with hundreds of papers on heart pathology who identified multiple samples, multiple continents as traumatized cardiac tissue .
But you are convinced they are dubious , which can only be because you don’t like the message.

And seemingly nothing will persuade any of you to study them.
Meanwhile, I am an ex professional scientist and scientific evidence oersuades me.

That’s why I am convinced the so called the eucharistic miracles are genuine. After reading a dozen books and looking at many forensic reports,
I’m convinced the shroud and sudarium are genuine.

The difference between the commenters on this forum and the many forensic scientists and pathologists involved is they are qualified to comment and they gave actually studied the samples. It is they saying the samples were live cardiac tissue at the point of sampling. Which they say is inexplicable. I prefer their science to forum beliefs . The commenters here are neither qualified to give a verdict, nor have seen the samples.

On the other hand I am utterly unconvinced by present evidence for Abiogenesis for start of life, there is none, nor any process or cell structure for abiogenesis to be allowed scientific status. It is pure conjecture not even a valid hypothesis .

Anyway. I came to the forum to talk investing.

I just though this thread needed balancing with “ but there is scientific evidence for one of the principal dogmas of Christianity “ transubstantiation. If you don’t study it, don’t voice opinion on it.

At that point I bow out of the thread

[scrumpyjack]

Maybe it's all linked with Alien Abductions? There seems to be a widespread quasi-religious belief in that

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

[servodude]

I just though this thread needed balancing with “ but there is scientific evidence for one of the principal dogmas of Christianity “ transubstantiation. If you don’t study it, don’t voice opinion on it.

like this? (it's got pictures of the DNA for extra fun)
https://scientificdesign.org/analysis-of-consecrated-sacramental-bread/

with the conclusion:

This study falsifies the claim that a religious ritual performed by a priest can actually change the substance of a bread wafer into the substance of a human body. It is by no means an attack on religion, but rather a small step in the refutation of superstition and irrational beliefs, an important role of science, at least since the age of Enlightenment. Religions can have important social benefits, and even more so when they evolve with scientific knowledge and update their claims and beliefs accordingly. We hope that this study will encourage others to use the tools of science to test other religious claims, thus contributing to bring enlightenment to their fellow human beings who still live under the influence of dogmatic religious doctrines.

and that's just the sciencey bit that refutes the nonsense

if you considered the return on investment that the Catholic church has made on the likes of tenuous claims of miracles from places (keeping solely in Europe) like Lourdes, Fatima, Knock or more recently Medugorje - it would seem a strange political move to keep this "evidence" on the down low from their club of 1.3 billion members

study whatever you like - voice opinions on it - but don't take the huff if folk point out when it looks like you are being suckered

[G3lc]

All opinions are OK until some people start being rude and or aggressive, and Religion seems to bring this about at times, perhaps the problem is Religion is and has been used over the years by people with a thirst for power.

[CliffEdge]

All opinions are OK until some people start being rude and or aggressive, and Religion seems to bring this about at times, perhaps the problem is Religion is and has been used over the years by people with a thirst for power.

Religion can be comforting though to those with psychological problems.
I knew a fellow who was surprised by joy in his bathroom. He was never the same again.

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
Several posts in this thread seem to be ignoring the forum-specific rule:

respect for other's views is important e.g. phrases like "your imaginary friend" or "you will go to hell" are not appropriate

Please observe this in future or posts will be deleted. (chas49)

[XFool]

There is also proof that madness exists.

Which proves the biggest problem with subjects like the original post.
It is hard to get a serious discussion on it.

Yeah. I think you have successfully demonstrated that for us...

[XFool]

Religion can be comforting though to those with psychological problems.
I knew a fellow who was surprised by joy in his bathroom. He was never the same again.

Could he be persuaded to send Joy round to my bathroom?

[mikewarr]

I just though this thread needed balancing with “ but there is scientific evidence for one of the principal dogmas of Christianity “ transubstantiation. If you don’t study it, don’t voice opinion on it.

like this? (it's got pictures of the DNA for extra fun)
https://scientificdesign.org/analysis-of-consecrated-sacramental-bread/

with the conclusion:

This study falsifies the claim that a religious ritual performed by a priest can actually change the substance of a bread wafer into the substance of a human body. It is by no means an attack on religion, but rather a small step in the refutation of superstition and irrational beliefs, an important role of science, at least since the age of Enlightenment. Religions can have important social benefits, and even more so when they evolve with scientific knowledge and update their claims and beliefs accordingly. We hope that this study will encourage others to use the tools of science to test other religious claims, thus contributing to bring enlightenment to their fellow human beings who still live under the influence of dogmatic religious doctrines.

and that's just the sciencey bit that refutes the nonsense

if you considered the return on investment that the Catholic church has made on the likes of tenuous claims of miracles from places (keeping solely in Europe) like Lourdes, Fatima, Knock or more recently Medugorje - it would seem a strange political move to keep this "evidence" on the down low from their club of 1.3 billion members

study whatever you like - voice opinions on it - but don't take the huff if folk point out when it looks like you are being suckered

Meanwhile ACTUAL forensic science by ACTUAL criminal forensic labs, on ACTUALLY consecrated wafers at Tixtla, sokolka, buenos airies, legnica, lanciano... was identified as traumatized cardiac tissue, so intimitatey bound into bread it cannot be faked, recently living which is impossible according to present science due to the decay rate of leucocytes but it happened. There was maternal DNA that also gave regional information.

Have you even looked up and studied the real science yet?.
Those who did the pseudoscience to which you refer clearly do not understand the difference between ontology, epistemiology and what it is possible for science to say about what is, rather than what appears to your senses. And in any event it is irrelevant to the cases that did occur.

If the "agency of change from bread to cardiac tissue chooses only to happen in a few cases, so be it. Those few cases are enough to defy science.

Your entire argument is a straw man. It has nothing to say about what actually did happen in the locations I stated,.
I notice you prefer to study the pseudo science, to the actual science of the eucharistic miracles.

If you want to know the truth. Study it then comment. Do not dismiss it, because of your aprioris prejudice and pseudoscience in the context it has nothing to do with the events that did happen. So it is not science related to those events.
Three things are almost certainly true.
1/ You have not studied the actual forensic reports on the actual eucharistic miracles.
2/ You are probably not qualified to comment on them.

3/ Your verdict disagrees with those who did study them and were qualified to comment on them. I prefer their verdict to yours because theirs is scientific.

And just like all illinformed sceptics you assume the church had a hand in creating or promoting miracles. The reality is church is a very sceptic organisation. It is hostile to such claims . So return on investment as a viewpoint is a mythical motive.
Even if the science validates after many years or studies, the best they ever say is "worthy of belief" not "did happen.

[ReformedCharacter]

Meanwhile ACTUAL forensic science by ACTUAL criminal forensic labs, on ACTUALLY consecrated wafers at Tixtla, sokolka, buenos airies, legnica, lanciano... was identified as traumatized cardiac tissue, so intimitatey bound into bread it cannot be faked, recently living which is impossible according to present science due to the decay rate of leucocytes but it happened. There was maternal DNA that also gave regional information.

In the spirit of open-minded discussion, could you please post some links to those results that showed consecrated wafers transformed into cardiac tissue please, thank you.

RC

[servodude]

Meanwhile ACTUAL forensic science by ACTUAL criminal forensic labs, on ACTUALLY consecrated wafers at Tixtla, sokolka, buenos airies, legnica, lanciano... was identified as traumatized cardiac tissue, so intimitatey bound into bread it cannot be faked, recently living which is impossible according to present science due to the decay rate of leucocytes but it happened. There was maternal DNA that also gave regional information.

In the spirit of open-minded discussion, could you please post some links to those results that showed consecrated wafers transformed into cardiac tissue please, thank you.

RC

And also could you possibly deal with the fact that for centuries the church has said it wasn't meant to be taken literally - the essence changing rather than the matter; why were they wrong?
What's so hard about metaphor for some of their followers that it needs to be "proven" again these heretical upstarts with their "science"? Is it a comprehension problem they have?

[bungeejumper]

What's so hard about metaphor for some of their followers that it needs to be "proven" again these heretical upstarts with their "science"? Is it a comprehension problem they have?

No, it's a personality type that we'd nowadays call cognitive dissonance.

"I'll have you know that it's been that way since the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, and anybody who says otherwise is a heretic. And I don't care if he's a so-called Protestant, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Christadelphian, or any of those other unbelievers who can't even recite the miracles of the eucharist. Atheists, all of them, I say."

Shall we remind ourselves, however briefly, that the Vatican didn't pardon Galileo until 1992?

BJ

[scrumpyjack]

What's so hard about metaphor for some of their followers that it needs to be "proven" again these heretical upstarts with their "science"? Is it a comprehension problem they have?

No, it's a personality type that we'd nowadays call cognitive dissonance.

"I'll have you know that it's been that way since the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, and anybody who says otherwise is a heretic. And I don't care if he's a so-called Protestant, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Christadelphian, or any of those other unbelievers who can't even recite the miracles of the eucharist. Atheists, all of them, I say."

Shall we remind ourselves, however briefly, that the Vatocan didn't pardon Galileo until 1992?

BJ

Quite. We should bear in mind the fundamental point about religion - that it is based on 'faith', ie a blind belief in something rather than a view formed by rational evidence. That fundamentally is what puts me off. Whoops shouldn't use the word fundamental, as they've given it a bad name

[ReformedCharacter]

Quite. We should bear in mind the fundamental point about religion - that it is based on 'faith', ie a blind belief in something rather than a view formed by rational evidence.

I don't think it's correct to say that religion (all religions) are based on faith alone, although it is true that Christianity as practised today in the West places great emphasis on faith. In the Christian tradition Saul was not converted to Christianity by faith, but by revelation. Buddhism, if it may be called a religion, places little emphasis on faith, for example.

RC

[mikewarr]

In the spirit of open-minded discussion, could you please post some links to those results that showed consecrated wafers transformed into cardiac tissue please, thank you.

RC

And also could you possibly deal with the fact that for centuries the church has said it wasn't meant to be taken literally - the essence changing rather than the matter; why were they wrong?
What's so hard about metaphor for some of their followers that it needs to be "proven" again these heretical upstarts with their "science"? Is it a comprehension problem they have?

I am done with this thread. There are those who will research them, those who wont. Up to them.

The catholic church has never said it was not to be taken literally, that was the faux reformationists who cannot agree with each other even!.

As doctrine.
From the first and taught by John himsef, Ignatius said " that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" Justin Martyr called it the "flesh" of Jesus. The belief is why Romans thought christians were cannibals. The bible uses the word meaning "gnaw" not "consume" generally is why Jesus followers were horrified.

Anasthasius of the nicene creed could not have made it plainer when he said
"So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ…"
But scientific tests cannot say what something is, only how it manifests to the senses. So the substance change does not always manifest as a form change. Which is not the same thing. Sometimes the window is opened to the senses as in the eucharistic miracles.


As science.
There is no quick fix here for information.
The web is a dreadful place to find balanced presentation of anything controversial.
The hyped up pious nonsense and overreach is as bad as the skeptic pseudoscience for clouding the facts. There is too much of both.
Worst of all is when sceptic cientists perjure themselves, take the dean of bialystock university regarding Sokolka attempting to misrerpresent what the qualified pathologists such as Soubaniec in his university had actually found. Thankfully the slides and sections speak for themselves. They were cardiac tissue. The attempts to gag the pathologists. Many universities have refused to get involved knowing what the subject matter was. Which is one reason why forensic labs and blind testing was used. The other reason is criminal forensic labs and pathologists ARE the right vehicle for testing human tissue, not academia.

You can find a precis of them on therealpresence.org with some slides and cardiac tissue sections.
There is some on reasontobelieve.com.au, you tube videos too by one of the investigators.

Best starting place
Review books serafini possible the best ("the cardiologist who examined jesus") discusses them all. Start there.
Or tesoriero either "unseen", or "my human heart" or perhaps castarnon "mas alla de la raison"


But if you want to see the actual reports you have to go back to the books of forensic reports
I cited "cronico de milagro eucharistico, esplendor en tixtla" castarnon for tixtla includes electron micrographs etc.
Or "the eucharistic miracle of lanciano" documents all the histological studies.
You see the labs had impeccable credentials.
Serafini explains the hard science of mitochondrial DNA haplogroups.
One reason these samples cannot be fraud, is they are human tissue and blood, but present only mitochondrial (maternal DNA) identification, not
nuclear DNA identity ( which is all redundant DNA) despite the abundance of cellular material. A fraudster DNA would give an identiy sequence. A human identity is a bar code. It is as if Jesus bar code was all 0. No repeats. But then he was alleged to have no father, only a human mother, so maybe that is why there is only maternal DNA

I entered the thread only to say "there is evidence" for those who think it is all a fairy tale.
The bleeding statue of cochabamba is also inexplicable by forensics.
Many other verified prodigies too. The hospital certified indedia of alexandrina da costa. Stigmata of Katya rivas. Miracle of sun at Fatima. Prophecies of Kibeho. Writings of rivas and therese neumman.They used langages they cannot have known. etc etc
How did a bed ridden nun in belgium explain where to find the long lost house of mary near ephesus?

My last word on the matter. I came here to talk about investing.

[bungeejumper]

I am done with this thread. There are those who will research them, those who wont. Up to them.

That's odd, you said that four days ago. Oh well, all good things must come to an end.

BJ

[Dod101]

I am not at all sure that I take everything that religion says as gospel, as it were but at the same time, I would not like to try to live without some kind of belief in the unknown
or unknowable.

I am for instance sure that there is life after death and that the works of say Beethoven came of course from him but as the Chinese say as a result of a God given talent.

And even if mankind has been making it up over the millennia, it has given us the most wonderful architecture, music and so on.

Dod

[XFool]

Many universities have refused to get involved knowing what the subject matter was.

Who can blame them?

I came here to talk about investing.

Well then, I do wish you would get on with it.

[CliffEdge]

I came here to talk about investing.

Well then, I do wish you would get on with it.

A lot of faith required in investing I agree. (Pray that you do well, who knows, might help.) But faith can be dangerously misplaced in the wrong things. Bitcoin anybody? some kind of metaphor.