Does Praying Work?

Factfinder

@just_sayin

The 400 yr. old report describing the authenticity of a claim and a book written expressing their opinion on said claim is hearsay. Why, because there is no way to cross examine the characters and there is no physical evidence. Both the book and the transcripts were written and put out for public consumption. You do not know if the characters even existed. You believe they did. You believe there were 24 witnesses and so on. Hearsay.  

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

The 400 yr. old report describing the authenticity of a claim and a book written expressing their opinion on said claim is hearsay. Why, because there is no way to cross examine the characters and there is no physical evidence. Both the book and the transcripts were written and put out for public consumption. You do not know if the characters even existed. You believe they did. You believe there were 24 witnesses and so on. Hearsay.  

The 400 year old report contains actual eye witness testimony - that's evidence, not hearsay.  You seem to be setting up a standard of evidence, that you are not applying equally.  Do you believe historical documents about George Washington being president?  You can't cross examine those people or the people who wrote those documents?  Do you believe George Washington was president?  If so, then know you hare using a different standard of evaluation for the two instances.  I don't even believe there are 24 actual witnesses who were sworn to tell the truth, and who had their testimony recorded in a court setting, who were eye witnesses of George Washington in the historical record.  But even if there were, that would be hearsay by your definition.  

I would have an easier time accepting your objection if you just said you personally don't find the eyewitnesses credible.  That's a value judgement on your part.  You seem to setting up a standard where no historical event can be validated by the argument you are making though.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Not at all. There are multiple fields of study that when combined we can arrive at discernable truths from the past. For instance the study of archeology, geography, ice cores, osteology, the cosmos, forensics, hieroglyphics and so on. Point being if something of great significance happened in the past there is typically evidence of it happening from other independent sources. So far you've produced a single source, one ancient set of religious transcripts. And one person's opinion of the claim written in book form who admits he was skeptical. But a lot of people still believe it today and given his knowledge of procedures during the time we're talking about, now he believes and just happens to be selling a book on it to a targeted audience. Sorry, nothing tangible there where verification is concerned. Doesn't matter how many web sites post the same story, there is no independent, verifiable evidence. Not only do I see the 24 witnesses as uncredible, I'm not sure they even existed. Or were coerced in some way. There is no way to cross examine them. Without that how do you find any of this credible? 

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Please do not conflate history (which is a science) with religion (which is a fiction). That George Washington was president is not a result of reading testimonies of 24 witnesses from 400 years ago: there are countless documents mentioning his name across multiple countries, countless pieces of his correspondence with other historical figures that, in turn, have countless documents mentioning their name... In order for the claim "George Washington was a president of the US" to not be true, there has to be some unimaginable worldwide conspiracy going on for the past 250+ years. While in order for the mentioned "miracle" to not be true, it is sufficient for the simple "broken phone" effect to take place: a doctor saw a small wound heal up quicker than he expected and, being an impressionable one, he attributed it to god's benevolence - then got drunk and wrote a very passionate report about what happened... word spread, and soon there were "witnesses" of the event who wanted attention and joined in the chorus. That is just one of a billion realistic scenarios I can think of.

Heck, it is possible that there were no "witnesses" and no "doctor" at all. Someone wrote a fantasy book and that was a part of the plot, and over time people started attributing a couple of exerts from the book to reality - much like many people nowadays are convinced that Romeo and Juliet were real historical personas. History is ridden of examples of people conflating fiction with reality, people making up stories that grew and changed over time.

Historians go out of their way to find as many pieces of the puzzle as possible and to eliminate every possible explanation that can plausibly be false. Theists do the opposite: they try to find every piece of data that can be loosely connected to their beliefs, and throw away everything else. A theist will not see a bush of clover suddenly appearing at a street corner as proof that Leprecauns exist - Leprecauns are not a part of the fiction he is captivated by - but "god's work" is treated very differently.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@JulesKorngold ; Praying "works" only for those who have entered into covenant relationship with Elohim by faith in Jesus Christ as their Messiah; otherwise, the only prayer that Elohim will hear is a prayer seeking repentance and covenant relationship with the Father by faith-belief in Jesus as one's Messiah.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: 200 Million Failed Prayers

@RickeyHoltsclaw
Can you explain how prayers worked during the Black Death when 200 million Christians died?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@JulesKorngold ; Christians die in body everyday...it's the resultant of the Adamic curse but only the body of the Christian dies, not the soul/spirit. Death of the body for the Christian is unification with our Lord, eternally (2 Corinthians 5:8) and death is victory in Jesus. 

For those who have rejected Jesus as Messiah, everyday is black death as they inch ever closer to incarceration in Hades-torments and ultimately the resurrection of the condemned, adjudication, the "second death" in Hell (Revelation 20:11-15).

Prayer for the Christian is intimacy with our Creator; prayer for the atheist-agnostic-secular humanist-religionist is talking into the air as they are not part of Elohim's family, they belong to Satan (John 8:44). Christians die in body...not in spirit...the black death just expedited a union in glory. 

 

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Well...?

@RickeyHoltsclaw
Again, can you explain how prayers worked during the Black Death when 200 million Christians died?  They prayed for life and got death.

Factfinder

JulesKorngold said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw
Again, can you explain how prayers worked during the Black Death when 200 million Christians died?  They prayed for life and got death.

@JulesKorngold

It is the god of the gaps and of coincidences, obviously.    Those two million didn't pray right, but the heathen over there did! LOL 

Barnardot

@JulesKorngold ;Again, can you explain how prayers worked during the Black Death when 200 million Christians died?  

Well thats easy to explain. 500 million Christians would have died if they didnt all pray. 

And what about the ones who died. Well even God has to do a bit of weeding every now and then so he can keep good strong crops.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Barnardot @JulesKorngold  Prayers of the Christian don't negate the Adamic curse concerning the natural body and its destiny in decay, degradation, death of the flesh (1 Corinthians 15:22)...the prayers of the Christian are intimacy with our Creator who died for us that we can live eternally with Him (John 3:16; John 11:25)...not in this body of decay and sin and suffering but in a resurrected body fashioned like His glorified body (Philippians 3:21); therefore, death for the Christian irrespective of causation is freedom from the encumbrance of sin, disease, pain, sorrow...death is swallowed up in victory (1 Corinthians 15:54). 

 

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Barnardot @JulesKorngold  Prayers of the Christian don't negate the Adamic curse concerning the natural body and its destiny in decay, degradation, death of the flesh (1 Corinthians 15:22)...the prayers of the Christian are intimacy with our Creator who died for us that we can live eternally with Him (John 3:16; John 11:25)...not in this body of decay and sin and suffering but in a resurrected body fashioned like His glorified body (Philippians 3:21); therefore, death for the Christian irrespective of causation is freedom from the encumbrance of sin, disease, pain, sorrow...death is swallowed up in victory (1 Corinthians 15:54). 

  

Well heck, there goes freewill!

just_sayin

Argument Topic: 3 Stooges of Atheism and their Science of the Gaps Argument

JulesKorngold said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw
Can you explain how prayers worked during the Black Death when 200 million Christians died?

Why do you repeat questions that have already been answered?

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/171747/#Comment_171747

One must wonder, why you would repeat the same question again and again when it has been answered at least 3 times now in this thread alone.  Surely you aren't that dumb that you couldn't remember the response given to you just one page back?  Again, God does not answer every prayer.  I've provided a brief list of things the Bible says about unanswered prayer.  .I've not claimed that God answers all prayers and even pointed to the example of Job where God doesn't even tell Job why he went through his suffering.  I have to ask though, why are you so desperate to run away from the examples of prayer God has answered that have been mentioned in this thread?  Those answers to prayer defeat your argument.

I must admit I laugh at the 3 stooges of atheism (@JulesKorngold, @MaxyCaesar, and @FactFinder) desperate attempts to deny that God answers prayer.  They have ignored mountains of evidence - documented medical records, numerous peer reviewed studies, polls, etc..  All of you have made me laugh hysterically as you employed science of the gaps explanations to try and rationalize the numerous examples of answered prayer. 

I have repeatedly pointed out the documented case of the guy whose leg was cut off who had it grow back overnight 2 1/2 years later.  Unlike the stooges, I provided 24 witness testimonies given in a tribunal where they were cross examined.  I pointed to evidence from the medical records of the doctors who amputated the leg and the doctors who verified that it was now back on the guys legs.  Did our 3 stooges of Atheism provide a single bit of evidence that showed that the event did not happen?  Nope Shemp, you didn't.  Nor could you.

Instead, @Factfinder claimed that people in the 1600s should not be trusted because they couldn't tell the difference between a guy with one leg and a guy with 2 legs.  Talk about special pleading and a science of the gaps appeal.  And don't get me started with CurlyMoe, aka MayCaesar and his 'even when science says it doesn't know, trust me, science knows' argument.  I keep asking him to tell me the scientific solution to an amputated leg growing back overnight.  The stooges do a lot of hair pulling, eye gouging, slapping and noise making here, but they never tell me the scientific answer that fits with the 24 eye witness testimonies.  The science and evidence all point to a miracle, a stooge must employ a science of the gaps argument and ignore science and evidence to conclude otherwise.



So 3 stooges of atheism, put up or .  What is the scientific explanation that fits the 24 eye witness testimonies and medical records regarding the miracle of Calinda, and do try not to make yet another science of the gaps appeal.

.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

JulesKorngold said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw
Can you explain how prayers worked during the Black Death when 200 million Christians died?

Why do you repeat questions that have already been answered?

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/171747/#Comment_171747

One must wonder, why you would repeat the same question again and again when it has been answered at least 3 times now in this thread alone.  Are you really that dumb that you couldn't remember the response given to you just one page back?  Again, God does not answer every prayer.  I've provided a brief list of prayers God doesn't answer.  Why are you so desperate to run away from the examples of prayer God has answered that have been mentioned in this thread?

I must admit I laugh at the 3 stooges of atheism (@JulesKorngold, @MaxyCaesar, and @FactFinder) desperate attempts to deny that God answers prayer.  They have ignored mountains of evidence..  All of you have made me laugh hysterically as you employed science of the gaps explanations to try and rationalize the numerous examples of answered prayer. 

I have repeatedly pointed out the documented case of the guy whose leg was cut off who had it grow back overnight 2 1/2 years later.  Unlike the stooges, I provided 24 witness testimonies given in a tribunal where they were cross examined.  I pointed to evidence from the medical records of the doctors who amputated the leg and the doctors who verified that it was now back on the guys legs.  Did our 3 stooges of Atheism provide a single bit of evidence that showed that the event did not happen?  Nope Shemp, you didn't.  Nor could you.

Instead, @Factfinder claimed that people in the 1600s should not be trusted because they couldn't tell the difference between a guy with one leg and a guy with 2 legs.  Talk about special pleading and a science of the gaps appeal.  And don't get me started with CurlyMoe, aka MayCaesar and his 'even when science says it doesn't know, trust me, science knows' argument.  I keep asking him to tell me the scientific solution to an amputated leg growing back overnight.  The stooges do a lot of hair pulling, eye gouging, slapping and noise making here, but they never tell me the scientific answer that fits with the 24 eye witness testimonies.  The science and evidence all point to a miracle, a stooge must employ a science of the gaps argument and ignore science and evidence to conclude otherwise.



So 3 stooges of atheism, put up or .  What is the scientific explanation that fits the 24 eye witness testimonies and medical records regarding the miracle of Calinda, and do try not to make yet another science of the gaps appeal.

.  

Christian want to be, lying is a sin. It says so in your myth book. 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

JulesKorngold said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw
Can you explain how prayers worked during the Black Death when 200 million Christians died?

Why do you repeat questions that have already been answered?

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/171747/#Comment_171747

One must wonder, why you would repeat the same question again and again when it has been answered at least 3 times now in this thread alone.  Are you really that dumb that you couldn't remember the response given to you just one page back?  Again, God does not answer every prayer.  I've provided a brief list of prayers God doesn't answer.  Why are you so desperate to run away from the examples of prayer God has answered that have been mentioned in this thread?

I must admit I laugh at the 3 stooges of atheism (@JulesKorngold, @MaxyCaesar, and @FactFinder) desperate attempts to deny that God answers prayer.  They have ignored mountains of evidence..  All of you have made me laugh hysterically as you employed science of the gaps explanations to try and rationalize the numerous examples of answered prayer. 

I have repeatedly pointed out the documented case of the guy whose leg was cut off who had it grow back overnight 2 1/2 years later.  Unlike the stooges, I provided 24 witness testimonies given in a tribunal where they were cross examined.  I pointed to evidence from the medical records of the doctors who amputated the leg and the doctors who verified that it was now back on the guys legs.  Did our 3 stooges of Atheism provide a single bit of evidence that showed that the event did not happen?  Nope Shemp, you didn't.  Nor could you.

Instead, @Factfinder claimed that people in the 1600s should not be trusted because they couldn't tell the difference between a guy with one leg and a guy with 2 legs.  Talk about special pleading and a science of the gaps appeal.  And don't get me started with CurlyMoe, aka MayCaesar and his 'even when science says it doesn't know, trust me, science knows' argument.  I keep asking him to tell me the scientific solution to an amputated leg growing back overnight.  The stooges do a lot of hair pulling, eye gouging, slapping and noise making here, but they never tell me the scientific answer that fits with the 24 eye witness testimonies.  The science and evidence all point to a miracle, a stooge must employ a science of the gaps argument and ignore science and evidence to conclude otherwise.



So 3 stooges of atheism, put up or .  What is the scientific explanation that fits the 24 eye witness testimonies and medical records regarding the miracle of Calinda, and do try not to make yet another science of the gaps appeal.

.  

Christian want to be, lying is a sin. It says so in your myth book. 

I noticed that as you were doing the Curly shuffle you didn't provide the scientific explanation that fits with the 24 witnesses and medical evidence of the miracle of Calanda.  You can't just Nyuck,, nyuck, nyuck your way out of this.  Come on what's the non miracle explanation?

Can't think of an answer?  Well, then explain the miracle of  Barbara Cummiskey who was instantly healed of paralysis, blindness, and organ failure.  I've provided the evidence here:

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/171747/#Comment_171747

How will you spin out of this:

Factfinder

@just_sayin

The 400 yr. old report describing the authenticity of a claim and a book written expressing their opinion on said claim is hearsay. Why, because there is no way to cross examine the characters and there is no physical evidence. Both the book and the transcripts were written and put out for public consumption. You do not know if the characters even existed. You believe they did. You believe there were 24 witnesses and so on. Hearsay.  

But if you ever learn what empirical evidence is and actually produced a centennial of a cent of it, it would not be your fairytale god that did it. It would be the one true god: The flying spaghetti monster! 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

The 400 yr. old report describing the authenticity of a claim and a book written expressing their opinion on said claim is hearsay. Why, because there is no way to cross examine the characters and there is no physical evidence. Both the book and the transcripts were written and put out for public consumption. You do not know if the characters even existed. You believe they did. You believe there were 24 witnesses and so on. Hearsay.  

But if you ever learn what empirical evidence is and actually produced a centennial of a cent of it, it would not be your fairytale god that did it. It would be the one true god: The flying spaghetti monster! 

Look at you denying scientific evidence and trying to do the Curly shuffle.



Calling the miracle of Calanda hearsay.  There were 24 eye witness accounts recorded word for word in a tribunal setting.  That's not 'hearsay'  That's evidence.  The medical records are evidence.  You can pretend the evidence is 'hearsay', but everyone knows its evidence.  The 24 eye witnesses were indeed cross examined.  The trial ran for 1 full year with lots of cross examination.  I keep explaining this to you and you keep pretending it didn't happen.  It doesn't matter how much you dance around it, the fact is there is solid eye witness and scientific evidence to substantiate the miracle of Calanda.  Same goes for Barbara Cummiskey's miracle.  I could mention the many other miracles mentioned in this thread.  One would have to stick their fingers in their eyes to not see all the evidence.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

This is what empirical evidence is: Empirical evidence is the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or through an experiment. Empirical evidence is a quintessential part of the scientific method of research that is applicable in many disciplines. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/data-science/empirical-evidence/#:~:text=What is Empirical Evidence?,is applicable in many disciplines.

What the 'doctor' 'testified' to was what's known as 'wet gangrene'. Deadly and aggressive. No one lives 50 plus days as it take about 3 days from onset to death.

If the guys leg wasn't amputated then we would expect to see the burial site vacant with no leg. It was empty.  And the guys leg would have his scars had it not been cut off and left intact the whole time. It did have all his scars. Doesn't support your fairytale. 

The 'tribunal' was not commissioned to investigate objectively what actually happened, it was commissioned to see if it could be true during a time the cult was looking for miracles and the masses were gullible. 

The absence of any contrary testimony at all coupled with the absence of a neutral objective inquiry is highly suspicious. Like being on trial in russia. The 'proceedings' were ceremonial for public consumption. There are no independent contemporary sources that were not affiliated or beholding to the cult; writing about this supposed miracle during the time it supposedly took place. Yet these people and events surrounding there lives were written about: https://www.famousbirthdays.com/year/1600s.html

The time frame is more consistent with a broken leg and being laid up while healing naturally. Not someone who broke a leg, developed wet gangrene, during a 50 day journey and had it amputated by a phantom 'doctor' who did not testify to amputating the leg. His assistant testified to it being amputated. So no 'doctor' takes credit for sawing the leg off. The 'doctors' who did testify, one didn't call the patient by name, just the guy. Or some other generic reference. I saw a guy, he had two legs, then he didn't, is not evidence. Refer above.

@just_sayin you just haven't produced real evidence. See above. 

So in the extraordinarily extremely long longshot this ever happened you would have to prove it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster. 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

This is what empirical evidence is: Empirical evidence is the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or through an experiment. Empirical evidence is a quintessential part of the scientific method of research that is applicable in many disciplines. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/data-science/empirical-evidence/#:~:text=What is Empirical Evidence?,is applicable in many disciplines.

What the 'doctor' 'testified' to was what's known as 'wet gangrene'. Deadly and aggressive. No one lives 50 plus days as it take about 3 days from onset to death.

If the guys leg wasn't amputated then we would expect to see the burial site vacant with no leg. It was empty.  And the guys leg would have his scars had it not been cut off and left intact the whole time. It did have all his scars. Doesn't support your fairytale. 

The 'tribunal' was not commissioned to investigate objectively what actually happened, it was commissioned to see if it could be true during a time the cult was looking for miracles and the masses were gullible. 

The absence of any contrary testimony at all coupled with the absence of a neutral objective inquiry is highly suspicious. Like being on trial in russia. The 'proceedings' were ceremonial for public consumption. There are no independent contemporary sources that were not affiliated or beholding to the cult; writing about this supposed miracle during the time it supposedly took place. Yet these people and events surrounding there lives were written about: https://www.famousbirthdays.com/year/1600s.html

The time frame is more consistent with a broken leg and being laid up while healing naturally. Not someone who broke a leg, developed wet gangrene, during a 50 day journey and had it amputated by a phantom 'doctor' who did not testify to amputating the leg. His assistant testified to it being amputated. So no 'doctor' takes credit for sawing the leg off. The 'doctors' who did testify, one didn't call the patient by name, just the guy. Or some other generic reference. I saw a guy, he had two legs, then he didn't, is not evidence. Refer above.

@just_sayin you just haven't produced real evidence. See above. 

So in the extraordinarily extremely long longshot this ever happened you would have to prove it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster. 

You stooges of atheism make me laugh.  I bet you think I'm supposed to say 'why certainly' after reading that crap?



You seem to think that the missing leg negates the miracle. However, multiple doctors attest to amputating it, and multiple doctors attest to its return.  Medical records support their eye witness testimony.  Now, that is scientific evidence.  It does not support your faith claim.  And let's be honest, it is nothing more than a faith claim, because all the facts and scientific evidence support the claim of the miracle of Calanda.  

https://imgflip.com/gif/1h88x2

You can ignore the fact and the science and the evidence, and indeed it is the only think a person of your faith can do.  The evidence is overwhelmingly against your claim.  I've provided many examples of miracles, and as sure as Curly will say 'Nyck, Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk' at some point in a 3 stooges skit, you three will make some special pleading claim how we should ignore the facts and science.  Could you use @MaxCaesar's catch phrase - 'even wehn science says it doesn't know the answer, trust me, it knows the answer'?  

Your faith in atheism is threated by the facts and evidence of the miracle of Callanda, and the miracles of Barbara Cummiskey, or Delia Knox, or Marolyn Ford, or Jeff Markin or the others that have been referenced in this thread.  When asked for the scientific explanation for these miracles you 3 just all just engage in slapstick and hope people will forget you didn't answer the question.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

This is what empirical evidence is: Empirical evidence is the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or through an experiment. Empirical evidence is a quintessential part of the scientific method of research that is applicable in many disciplines. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/data-science/empirical-evidence/#:~:text=What is Empirical Evidence?,is applicable in many disciplines.

What the 'doctor' 'testified' to was what's known as 'wet gangrene'. Deadly and aggressive. No one lives 50 plus days as it take about 3 days from onset to death.

If the guys leg wasn't amputated then we would expect to see the burial site vacant with no leg. It was empty.  And the guys leg would have his scars had it not been cut off and left intact the whole time. It did have all his scars. Doesn't support your fairytale. 

The 'tribunal' was not commissioned to investigate objectively what actually happened, it was commissioned to see if it could be true during a time the cult was looking for miracles and the masses were gullible. 

The absence of any contrary testimony at all coupled with the absence of a neutral objective inquiry is highly suspicious. Like being on trial in russia. The 'proceedings' were ceremonial for public consumption. There are no independent contemporary sources that were not affiliated or beholding to the cult; writing about this supposed miracle during the time it supposedly took place. Yet these people and events surrounding there lives were written about: https://www.famousbirthdays.com/year/1600s.html

The time frame is more consistent with a broken leg and being laid up while healing naturally. Not someone who broke a leg, developed wet gangrene, during a 50 day journey and had it amputated by a phantom 'doctor' who did not testify to amputating the leg. His assistant testified to it being amputated. So no 'doctor' takes credit for sawing the leg off. The 'doctors' who did testify, one didn't call the patient by name, just the guy. Or some other generic reference. I saw a guy, he had two legs, then he didn't, is not evidence. Refer above.

@just_sayin you just haven't produced real evidence. See above. 

So in the extraordinarily extremely long longshot this ever happened you would have to prove it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster. 

You stooges of atheism make me laugh.  I bet you think I'm supposed to say 'why certainly' after reading that crap?



You seem to think that the missing leg negates the miracle. However, multiple doctors attest to amputating it, and multiple doctors attest to its return.  Medical records support their eye witness testimony.  Now, that is scientific evidence.  It does not support your faith claim.  And let's be honest, it is nothing more than a faith claim, because all the facts and scientific evidence support the claim of the miracle of Calanda.  

https://imgflip.com/gif/1h88x2

You can ignore the fact and the science and the evidence, and indeed it is the only think a person of your faith can do.  The evidence is overwhelmingly against your claim.  I've provided many examples of miracles, and as sure as Curly will say 'Nyck, Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk' at some point in a 3 stooges skit, you three will make some special pleading claim how we should ignore the facts and science.  Could you use @MaxCaesar's catch phrase - 'even wehn science says it doesn't know the answer, trust me, it knows the answer'?  

Your faith in atheism is threated by the facts and evidence of the miracle of Callanda, and the miracles of Barbara Cummiskey, or Delia Knox, or Marolyn Ford, or Jeff Markin or the others that have been referenced in this thread.  When asked for the scientific explanation for these miracles you 3 just all just engage in slapstick and hope people will forget you didn't answer the question.

just_sayin You've presented no "science and the evidence". You've presented a lie aimed at the gullible. If only you could adhere to 'facts and science'. You seem to think an empty burial site proves your fictitious character had a leg amputated. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; That has nothing to do with free will.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin You've presented no "science and the evidence". You've presented a lie aimed at the gullible. If only you could adhere to 'facts and science'. You seem to think an empty burial site proves your fictitious character had a leg amputated. 

In 1637, Miguel Juan  Pellicer's right leg was amputated just below the knee and cauterized with fire, at the Zaragoza hospital by Professor Juan de Estanga and Diego Millaruelo.  Specifically, it was amputated 'four rings below the knee'.  Miguel Juan Pellicer remained in hospital until in the spring of 1638.  Juan Lorenzo Garcia, a practictioner at the hospital testified to the amputation also.  He even buried the leg in the cemetery beside the hospital.  The box it was placed in, was found undisturbed when it was dug up.  

On March 29, 1640, Pellicer's mother entered the room he was sleeping in and saw both legs hanging off the bed.  She thought she had entered the room where the soldier was staying, but when she looked it was her son.  Several towns people, including his mother and father spoke at the proceedings to establish the facts of the case.  The proceedings showed that the restored leg was initially cold, hard and blue-black in color and, moreover, it was at first a few centimeters' shorter than the other leg owing to bone tissue lost by the fracture. In about three months, the leg gained in color, strength and length and was normal and fully functional.

The reason I know this is because the royal notary of the king, Miguel Andréu, certified the facts of the Pellicer case by writing down the testimony of the 24 witnesses and preserving the medical records.  Those records remain on file to this day.

Now Moe, that's not hearsay, that is more than slapstick and atheistic faith based wishful thinking.  That is hard core evidence that was meticulously documented.  No less than 5 staff people at the hospital where the leg was amputated have testified to the fact.  Multiple doctors, as well as townspeople, family and friends testified to the legs return, and to the 2 1/2 year period where Pellicer only had 1 leg.  

Sorry buddy, hate to disappoint ya like a bad haircut, but this is evidence, medical records, and cross examined testimony.  And you got nothing but the atheistic equivalent of the curly shuffle going on.  Embrace science and medicine.  Embrace facts and evidence.  Leave your atheistic faith behind.

The 3 atheist stooges unleashing all of their brain power:

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Ok I admit it. The evidence is obvious, a miracle granted by the flying spaghetti monster transpired. It all points to it. Did any member of the tribunal get any divine sauce of life secrets? 

ZeusAres42

Until there is any empirical/observable evidence, I think it's safe to assume that there is no God. But does that answer the original poster's question? No. First, as I previously stated, it would be helpful if the original poster was more specific. I mean, are they asking if praying works for being able to see tiny unicorns living in our anuses or what?

That being said, praying, in some sense, can work, but that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity, or at least it can be adequately explained by natural phenomena. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@ZeusAres42 ;  Explain the origin of matter, the complex human genome, logic, reason, Time...void design, a Designer?

ZeusAres42

@RickeyHoltsclaw AKD alt account @RickeyD (AKA Now Banned)

What dont you understand about:

 That being said, praying, in some sense, can work, but that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity, or at least it can be adequately explained by natural phenomena. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@ZeusAres42 ; Prayers are for those in the family of Elohim having trusted in Jesus as Messiah for the forgiveness of sin. If you have not humbled yourself and trusted in Jesus, you are not the Father's family and the only prayer He will entertain from you is a prayer of repentance and confession of faith in Jesus.

Now, explain the origin of matter, the origin of the complex human genome, void design and an omnipotent Designer?

ZeusAres42

@RickeyHoltsclaw

do try to stay on topic. If I were to take your route then I could just as well ask you to explain how that why in a bar the question "should I have beer or wine" is a question that can be answered simply with just yes or no. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@ZeusAres42 ;  The "topic" is "Prayer"....I responded in context. You suggest there is an absence of evidence for our Creator...I responded in context...why not answer my question, why obfuscate?

Since you deny evidence for our Creator...Please explain the origin of matter, the origin of the complex human genome, the origin of Time; this, void design and an omnipotent Designer?

ZeusAres42

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@ZeusAres42 ;  The "topic" is "Prayer"....I responded in context. You suggest there is an absence of evidence for our Creator...I responded in context...why not answer my question, why obfuscate?

Since you deny evidence for our Creator...Please explain the origin of matter, the origin of the complex human genome, the origin of Time; this, void design and an omnipotent Designer?

I didn't deny anything. It's really simple really what I said. Thus your comments continue to be irrelevant and absurd. FYI, your logical fallacy now is:

 

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@ZeusAres42 ;  The "topic" is "Prayer"....I responded in context. You suggest there is an absence of evidence for our Creator...I responded in context...why not answer my question, why obfuscate?

Since you deny evidence for our Creator...Please explain the origin of matter, the origin of the complex human genome, the origin of Time; this, void design and an omnipotent Designer?

Believing isn't evidence or knowing. Those elements of the natural world has only revealed natural evidence. The more we learn the mor we realize we do not know. You don't know, I don't know and @ZeusAres42 don't know. You assert it's your creator's work, which one Zeus? How do you know it's zeus and not astrea? 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ;  Use naturalistic means to explain what you consider natural evidence...

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ;  Use naturalistic means to explain what you consider natural evidence...

As it has been said, I don't know is more truthful than claiming THOR did it. Or any god you insert. You still don't know. If a god answers prayers, you don't know which one. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; My Lord answers my prayers...always...He answers with Yes, No, Wait. If you deny evidence for our Creator; again, explain the presence of matter, the Realm of Time, the complex human genome, thought, reason, logic, wisdom, discernment, void design, purpose, a Designer?

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; My Lord answers my prayers...always...He answers with Yes, No, Wait. If you deny evidence for our Creator; again, explain the presence of matter, the Realm of Time, the complex human genome, thought, reason, logic, wisdom, discernment, void design, purpose, a Designer?

You believe that, know nothing. Thor did it. Prove me wrong. 

PorfirioDiaz

People seem to forget the bible was written by humans. The only species on the planet most knowingly capable of twisting the truth or creating a master piece story. Why would anyone believe what humans wrote in the past especially underlining the fact that not all scriptures detail the same events. If there ever was anyone ble to pull off a master piece of a storybook as the bible, it would be humans.


God however, plays a different role. He cares nothing about what you think because he is set for life. He opens up to those who muddle with misinformation and temptations but yet choose to have faith. It sounds rhetoric right now but as far as the millions of jews praying for life and got death. Yes its tragic. But only in your singular eyes is the life of a person considered important. In the world far beyond your understanding a body, life, person, jew, etc.... is worthless and of non importance. What truely counts is the spirit and soul it carries onto where ever it flows next after dying. We only factor in what reality is here but far beyond it (because it ill happen to everybody) once you die, thats the real energy that counts as important I would say rhetorically speaking.




For those not familiar with the sacred cristo. The way it resembles in our bodies and connected tl the bible. Heres a link

https://clineapothecary.com/journal/f/sacred-secretion-christ-oil-and-the-art-of-preservation


And a bonus interisting read

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/cerebrospinal-fluid-washing-in-brain-during-sleep/

Barnardot

@PorfirioDiaz ;What truely counts is the spirit and soul it carries onto where ever it flows next after dying.

People also seem to forget that spirit and the soul and God were also written and made up by humans to appeal to other humans who are deluded.

Barnardot

@RickeyHoltsclaw ;My Lord answers my prayers

He might say yes but what does God say yes to? Like does he mean Yes I hear you? The reason I ask is does God ever say Yes I am going to send you 72 virgins tomorrow like you prayed for?

And for that matter. What prayers has God ever granted?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Barnardot ; My Lord hears and answers my prayers because I have entered into covenant relationship with Him by faith in Jesus as my Messiah and His Spirit indwells me...My Lord has methodically walked me through 67 years of life...and He is faithful.

ZeusAres42

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Barnardot ; My Lord hears and answers my prayers because I have entered into covenant relationship with Him by faith in Jesus as my Messiah and His Spirit indwells me...My Lord has methodically walked me through 67 years of life...and He is faithful.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@ZeusAres42 ;  The Father hears my prayers, why not yours?  The

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

Until there is any empirical/observable evidence, I think it's safe to assume that there is no God. But does that answer the original poster's question? No. First, as I previously stated, it would be helpful if the original poster was more specific. I mean, are they asking if praying works for being able to see tiny unicorns living in our anuses or what?

That being said, praying, in some sense, can work, but that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity, or at least it can be adequately explained by natural phenomena. 

I think you are mistaken.  No amount of empirical/observable evidence will be enough for the faithful atheist.  @FactFinder said he would believe if someone could show evidence of god restoring someone's lost limbs.  I  provided him meticulously documented evidence that literally had the royal seal of approval.  Barnadot said he would believe if he saw a miracle happen on youtube.  I provided the video of Delia Knox who was paralyzed and got up and walked at a prayer service.  Jules said he wanted to see peer reviewed documentation and medical records and I provided him many.  I gave him medical records, peer reviewed journals from JAMA, Harvard, Yale, Science Direct, Stanford, and the National Academy of Sciences.  I showed him that the bulk of studies on prayer shows it works.  There is never enough evidence for them.  Evidence does not matter, they believe what they believe because of their faith in atheism.  They will always just ignore anything that contradicts their faith claims.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Until there is any empirical/observable evidence, I think it's safe to assume that there is no God. But does that answer the original poster's question? No. First, as I previously stated, it would be helpful if the original poster was more specific. I mean, are they asking if praying works for being able to see tiny unicorns living in our anuses or what?

That being said, praying, in some sense, can work, but that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity, or at least it can be adequately explained by natural phenomena. 

I think you are mistaken.  No amount of empirical/observable evidence will be enough for the faithful atheist.  @FactFinder said he would believe if someone could show evidence of god restoring someone's lost limbs.  I  provided him meticulously documented evidence that literally had the royal seal of approval.  Barnadot said he would believe if he saw a miracle happen on youtube.  I provided the video of Delia Knox who was paralyzed and got up and walked at a prayer service.  Jules said he wanted to see peer reviewed documentation and medical records and I provided him many.  I gave him medical records, peer reviewed journals from JAMA, Harvard, Yale, Science Direct, Stanford, and the National Academy of Sciences.  I showed him that the bulk of studies on prayer shows it works.  There is never enough evidence for them.  Evidence does not matter, they believe what they believe because of their faith in atheism.  They will always just ignore anything that contradicts their faith claims.  

Don't lie. You presented findings of an internal cult tribunal that was seeking facts about a claim in order to package and put out for consumption during medieval times. They were looking for a miracle to sell the people on for their cult. They put some facts together. There was a guy. The town existed. Somebody got hurt and broke their leg. He went away to get better treatment, a 50 day journey.  The claim was made he had wet gangrene after the 50 day trip. A condition that takes about three day to kill from the onset, which takes about a day. Became a beggar, came back. Mom said he went to bed with one leg, woke up with two.  A couple of practitioners saw a guy with an amputated leg. None however testify to sawing the leg off. They checked the hospital burial site for the leg. Surprise it wasn't there. The guy with the broken leg had it still, so naturally it wouldn't be there. The cult however deemed the miracle true because the leg wasn't in the ground. Nowhere in the whole delusional story is there anything resembling evidence. It is a fantasy concocted by a cult for the believing gullible in the 1600s.   

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Until there is any empirical/observable evidence, I think it's safe to assume that there is no God. But does that answer the original poster's question? No. First, as I previously stated, it would be helpful if the original poster was more specific. I mean, are they asking if praying works for being able to see tiny unicorns living in our anuses or what?

That being said, praying, in some sense, can work, but that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity, or at least it can be adequately explained by natural phenomena. 

I think you are mistaken.  No amount of empirical/observable evidence will be enough for the faithful atheist.  @FactFinder said he would believe if someone could show evidence of god restoring someone's lost limbs.  I  provided him meticulously documented evidence that literally had the royal seal of approval.  Barnadot said he would believe if he saw a miracle happen on youtube.  I provided the video of Delia Knox who was paralyzed and got up and walked at a prayer service.  Jules said he wanted to see peer reviewed documentation and medical records and I provided him many.  I gave him medical records, peer reviewed journals from JAMA, Harvard, Yale, Science Direct, Stanford, and the National Academy of Sciences.  I showed him that the bulk of studies on prayer shows it works.  There is never enough evidence for them.  Evidence does not matter, they believe what they believe because of their faith in atheism.  They will always just ignore anything that contradicts their faith claims.  

Don't lie. You presented findings of an internal cult tribunal that was seeking facts about a claim in order to package and put out for consumption during medieval times. They were looking for a miracle to sell the people on for their cult. They put some facts together. There was a guy. The town existed. Somebody got hurt and broke their leg. He went away to get better treatment, a 50 day journey.  The claim was made he had wet gangrene after the 50 day trip. A condition that takes about three day to kill from the onset, which takes about a day. Became a beggar, came back. Mom said he went to bed with one leg, woke up with two.  A couple of practitioners saw a guy with an amputated leg. None however testify to sawing the leg off. They checked the hospital burial site for the leg. Surprise it wasn't there. The guy with the broken leg had it still, so naturally it wouldn't be there. The cult however deemed the miracle true because the leg wasn't in the ground. Nowhere in the whole delusional story is there anything resembling evidence. It is a fantasy concocted by a cult for the believing gullible in the 1600s.   

Actually doctors, Juan de Estanga and Diego Millaruelo, carried out the operation. The leg was cut "four fingers below the knee."  according to their testimony.  This is also confirmed by the intern who buried the leg and the Chaplin at the hospital.  All of which testified to the miracle.  Further, the miracle was not just verified by the church, but also by the state.  In fact the testimonies were certified by the king's own royal record keeper and preserved.  There are 24 eye witness accounts, along with medical records, both of the amputation and of the restoration of the leg.  Why do you seek to mislead?  Again, as is so often the case, I am the one referencing evidence and facts, and the atheist just wants us to believe on faith that their version of the account is true.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@JulesKorngold ;  Prayer works for me as prayer is intimacy with my Lord...I find relationship, intimacy, peace, joy, love, purpose, in prayer....yes, prayer is NOT for those who deny our Creator's existence or deny the reality of the Spiritual Realm as they have chosen to exist apart from Elohim who is "Spirit" (John 4:24)...that is a free will choice as prayer is a free will choice...it works for me. My LORD does NOT entertain the prayers of the atheist unless that prayer is one seeking repentance and faith in Jesus as Messiah; therefore, when the atheist asks "Does prayer work?" the truth is, NOT for the atheist but it does work wonders for those who love God in Jesus Christ.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Until there is any empirical/observable evidence, I think it's safe to assume that there is no God. But does that answer the original poster's question? No. First, as I previously stated, it would be helpful if the original poster was more specific. I mean, are they asking if praying works for being able to see tiny unicorns living in our anuses or what?

That being said, praying, in some sense, can work, but that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity, or at least it can be adequately explained by natural phenomena. 

I think you are mistaken.  No amount of empirical/observable evidence will be enough for the faithful atheist.  @FactFinder said he would believe if someone could show evidence of god restoring someone's lost limbs.  I  provided him meticulously documented evidence that literally had the royal seal of approval.  Barnadot said he would believe if he saw a miracle happen on youtube.  I provided the video of Delia Knox who was paralyzed and got up and walked at a prayer service.  Jules said he wanted to see peer reviewed documentation and medical records and I provided him many.  I gave him medical records, peer reviewed journals from JAMA, Harvard, Yale, Science Direct, Stanford, and the National Academy of Sciences.  I showed him that the bulk of studies on prayer shows it works.  There is never enough evidence for them.  Evidence does not matter, they believe what they believe because of their faith in atheism.  They will always just ignore anything that contradicts their faith claims.  

Don't lie. You presented findings of an internal cult tribunal that was seeking facts about a claim in order to package and put out for consumption during medieval times. They were looking for a miracle to sell the people on for their cult. They put some facts together. There was a guy. The town existed. Somebody got hurt and broke their leg. He went away to get better treatment, a 50 day journey.  The claim was made he had wet gangrene after the 50 day trip. A condition that takes about three day to kill from the onset, which takes about a day. Became a beggar, came back. Mom said he went to bed with one leg, woke up with two.  A couple of practitioners saw a guy with an amputated leg. None however testify to sawing the leg off. They checked the hospital burial site for the leg. Surprise it wasn't there. The guy with the broken leg had it still, so naturally it wouldn't be there. The cult however deemed the miracle true because the leg wasn't in the ground. Nowhere in the whole delusional story is there anything resembling evidence. It is a fantasy concocted by a cult for the believing gullible in the 1600s.   

Actually doctors, Juan de Estanga and Diego Millaruelo, carried out the operation. The leg was cut "four fingers below the knee."  according to their testimony.  This is also confirmed by the intern who buried the leg and the Chaplin at the hospital.  All of which testified to the miracle.  Further, the miracle was not just verified by the church, but also by the state.  In fact the testimonies were certified by the king's own royal record keeper and preserved.  There are 24 eye witness accounts, along with medical records, both of the amputation and of the restoration of the leg.  Why do you seek to mislead?  Again, as is so often the case, I am the one referencing evidence and facts, and the atheist just wants us to believe on faith that their version of the account is true.  

Yeah well did they testify personally at the tribunal or were depositions sent? I mean you believe this fantasy so you should know little details like that. Didn't one of them say something like "the guy" referring to who was supposed to have been his patient? Who was the objective investigating body or sleuth experts? Oh yeah, none. As in no evidence, your faith means nothing and exposes your ignorance of empirical evidence. In every joke there must be some element of truth in order for it to be funny. No one hardly knows of this because Catholicism itself doesn't believe it, otherwise it would be boasting it of all the time word wide. That would be because the critical thinker knows the leg, scars and all never was cut off. Maybe someone else's but not the one in question. Which brings us to this point once again, certain benign facts were used in this fabrication to deceive the gullible during the spanish inquisition. You've produced no evidence that disprove that fact. The jokes on you!

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Until there is any empirical/observable evidence, I think it's safe to assume that there is no God. But does that answer the original poster's question? No. First, as I previously stated, it would be helpful if the original poster was more specific. I mean, are they asking if praying works for being able to see tiny unicorns living in our anuses or what?

That being said, praying, in some sense, can work, but that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity, or at least it can be adequately explained by natural phenomena. 

I think you are mistaken.  No amount of empirical/observable evidence will be enough for the faithful atheist.  @FactFinder said he would believe if someone could show evidence of god restoring someone's lost limbs.  I  provided him meticulously documented evidence that literally had the royal seal of approval.  Barnadot said he would believe if he saw a miracle happen on youtube.  I provided the video of Delia Knox who was paralyzed and got up and walked at a prayer service.  Jules said he wanted to see peer reviewed documentation and medical records and I provided him many.  I gave him medical records, peer reviewed journals from JAMA, Harvard, Yale, Science Direct, Stanford, and the National Academy of Sciences.  I showed him that the bulk of studies on prayer shows it works.  There is never enough evidence for them.  Evidence does not matter, they believe what they believe because of their faith in atheism.  They will always just ignore anything that contradicts their faith claims.  

Don't lie. You presented findings of an internal cult tribunal that was seeking facts about a claim in order to package and put out for consumption during medieval times. They were looking for a miracle to sell the people on for their cult. They put some facts together. There was a guy. The town existed. Somebody got hurt and broke their leg. He went away to get better treatment, a 50 day journey.  The claim was made he had wet gangrene after the 50 day trip. A condition that takes about three day to kill from the onset, which takes about a day. Became a beggar, came back. Mom said he went to bed with one leg, woke up with two.  A couple of practitioners saw a guy with an amputated leg. None however testify to sawing the leg off. They checked the hospital burial site for the leg. Surprise it wasn't there. The guy with the broken leg had it still, so naturally it wouldn't be there. The cult however deemed the miracle true because the leg wasn't in the ground. Nowhere in the whole delusional story is there anything resembling evidence. It is a fantasy concocted by a cult for the believing gullible in the 1600s.   

Actually doctors, Juan de Estanga and Diego Millaruelo, carried out the operation. The leg was cut "four fingers below the knee."  according to their testimony.  This is also confirmed by the intern who buried the leg and the Chaplin at the hospital.  All of which testified to the miracle.  Further, the miracle was not just verified by the church, but also by the state.  In fact the testimonies were certified by the king's own royal record keeper and preserved.  There are 24 eye witness accounts, along with medical records, both of the amputation and of the restoration of the leg.  Why do you seek to mislead?  Again, as is so often the case, I am the one referencing evidence and facts, and the atheist just wants us to believe on faith that their version of the account is true.  

Yeah well did they testify personally at the tribunal or were depositions sent? I mean you believe this fantasy so you should know little details like that. Didn't one of them say something like "the guy" referring to who was supposed to have been his patient? Who was the objective investigating body or sleuth experts? Oh yeah, none. As in no evidence, your faith means nothing and exposes your ignorance of empirical evidence. In every joke there must be some element of truth in order for it to be funny. No one hardly knows of this because Catholicism itself doesn't believe it, otherwise it would be boasting it of all the time word wide. That would be because the critical thinker knows the leg, scars and all never was cut off. Maybe someone else's but not the one in question. Which brings us to this point once again, certain benign facts were used in this fabrication to deceive the gullible during the spanish inquisition. You've produced no evidence that disprove that fact. The jokes on you!

The following is a google translation of some of the testimony:

The original tribunal record is here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5325008951&view=1up&seq=136







Four witnesses who testified that the guy lost a leg by amputation at the hospital, that he stayed at the hospital.  And that 2 years and 7 months later the same guy had 2 legs.  I keep providing facts and evidence and you keep working in the faith realm.  Special pleading isn't evidence, @FactFinder.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist like you.  The evidence says the guy's leg was miraculously healed.  Your faith says it wasn't.  Which should I believe?

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Until there is any empirical/observable evidence, I think it's safe to assume that there is no God. But does that answer the original poster's question? No. First, as I previously stated, it would be helpful if the original poster was more specific. I mean, are they asking if praying works for being able to see tiny unicorns living in our anuses or what?

That being said, praying, in some sense, can work, but that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity, or at least it can be adequately explained by natural phenomena. 

I think you are mistaken.  No amount of empirical/observable evidence will be enough for the faithful atheist.  @FactFinder said he would believe if someone could show evidence of god restoring someone's lost limbs.  I  provided him meticulously documented evidence that literally had the royal seal of approval.  Barnadot said he would believe if he saw a miracle happen on youtube.  I provided the video of Delia Knox who was paralyzed and got up and walked at a prayer service.  Jules said he wanted to see peer reviewed documentation and medical records and I provided him many.  I gave him medical records, peer reviewed journals from JAMA, Harvard, Yale, Science Direct, Stanford, and the National Academy of Sciences.  I showed him that the bulk of studies on prayer shows it works.  There is never enough evidence for them.  Evidence does not matter, they believe what they believe because of their faith in atheism.  They will always just ignore anything that contradicts their faith claims.  

Don't lie. You presented findings of an internal cult tribunal that was seeking facts about a claim in order to package and put out for consumption during medieval times. They were looking for a miracle to sell the people on for their cult. They put some facts together. There was a guy. The town existed. Somebody got hurt and broke their leg. He went away to get better treatment, a 50 day journey.  The claim was made he had wet gangrene after the 50 day trip. A condition that takes about three day to kill from the onset, which takes about a day. Became a beggar, came back. Mom said he went to bed with one leg, woke up with two.  A couple of practitioners saw a guy with an amputated leg. None however testify to sawing the leg off. They checked the hospital burial site for the leg. Surprise it wasn't there. The guy with the broken leg had it still, so naturally it wouldn't be there. The cult however deemed the miracle true because the leg wasn't in the ground. Nowhere in the whole delusional story is there anything resembling evidence. It is a fantasy concocted by a cult for the believing gullible in the 1600s.   

Actually doctors, Juan de Estanga and Diego Millaruelo, carried out the operation. The leg was cut "four fingers below the knee."  according to their testimony.  This is also confirmed by the intern who buried the leg and the Chaplin at the hospital.  All of which testified to the miracle.  Further, the miracle was not just verified by the church, but also by the state.  In fact the testimonies were certified by the king's own royal record keeper and preserved.  There are 24 eye witness accounts, along with medical records, both of the amputation and of the restoration of the leg.  Why do you seek to mislead?  Again, as is so often the case, I am the one referencing evidence and facts, and the atheist just wants us to believe on faith that their version of the account is true.  

Yeah well did they testify personally at the tribunal or were depositions sent? I mean you believe this fantasy so you should know little details like that. Didn't one of them say something like "the guy" referring to who was supposed to have been his patient? Who was the objective investigating body or sleuth experts? Oh yeah, none. As in no evidence, your faith means nothing and exposes your ignorance of empirical evidence. In every joke there must be some element of truth in order for it to be funny. No one hardly knows of this because Catholicism itself doesn't believe it, otherwise it would be boasting it of all the time word wide. That would be because the critical thinker knows the leg, scars and all never was cut off. Maybe someone else's but not the one in question. Which brings us to this point once again, certain benign facts were used in this fabrication to deceive the gullible during the spanish inquisition. You've produced no evidence that disprove that fact. The jokes on you!

The following is a google translation of some of the testimony:

The original tribunal record is here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5325008951&view=1up&seq=136







Four witnesses who testified that the guy lost a leg by amputation at the hospital, that he stayed at the hospital.  And that 2 years and 7 months later the same guy had 2 legs.  I keep providing facts and evidence and you keep working in the faith realm.  Special pleading isn't evidence, @FactFinder.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist like you.  The evidence says the guy's leg was miraculously healed.  Your faith says it wasn't.  Which should I believe?

LOL, still don't get it do you? Educate yourself. You posted what I said. None took credit in person. They sent depositions. At least that is what the highlighted portions describes. Or was I supposed to sift through the boring predictable fantasy to make your case for you? They 'spoke' through assistants and nurses. But even if they did personally take credit before the king, it's a fantasy, myth. No objectivity in the authenticity process what so ever. A myth that got buried in the archives because the more intelligent cultists realized it's untrue. It takes faith to be a theist. It takes intellect to be atheist, no faith required. The only physical 'evidence' (a stretch at the very least for your position) overwhelmingly points to the guy in question never had his leg cut off because he still had it. 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Until there is any empirical/observable evidence, I think it's safe to assume that there is no God. But does that answer the original poster's question? No. First, as I previously stated, it would be helpful if the original poster was more specific. I mean, are they asking if praying works for being able to see tiny unicorns living in our anuses or what?

That being said, praying, in some sense, can work, but that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity, or at least it can be adequately explained by natural phenomena. 

I think you are mistaken.  No amount of empirical/observable evidence will be enough for the faithful atheist.  @FactFinder said he would believe if someone could show evidence of god restoring someone's lost limbs.  I  provided him meticulously documented evidence that literally had the royal seal of approval.  Barnadot said he would believe if he saw a miracle happen on youtube.  I provided the video of Delia Knox who was paralyzed and got up and walked at a prayer service.  Jules said he wanted to see peer reviewed documentation and medical records and I provided him many.  I gave him medical records, peer reviewed journals from JAMA, Harvard, Yale, Science Direct, Stanford, and the National Academy of Sciences.  I showed him that the bulk of studies on prayer shows it works.  There is never enough evidence for them.  Evidence does not matter, they believe what they believe because of their faith in atheism.  They will always just ignore anything that contradicts their faith claims.  

Don't lie. You presented findings of an internal cult tribunal that was seeking facts about a claim in order to package and put out for consumption during medieval times. They were looking for a miracle to sell the people on for their cult. They put some facts together. There was a guy. The town existed. Somebody got hurt and broke their leg. He went away to get better treatment, a 50 day journey.  The claim was made he had wet gangrene after the 50 day trip. A condition that takes about three day to kill from the onset, which takes about a day. Became a beggar, came back. Mom said he went to bed with one leg, woke up with two.  A couple of practitioners saw a guy with an amputated leg. None however testify to sawing the leg off. They checked the hospital burial site for the leg. Surprise it wasn't there. The guy with the broken leg had it still, so naturally it wouldn't be there. The cult however deemed the miracle true because the leg wasn't in the ground. Nowhere in the whole delusional story is there anything resembling evidence. It is a fantasy concocted by a cult for the believing gullible in the 1600s.   

Actually doctors, Juan de Estanga and Diego Millaruelo, carried out the operation. The leg was cut "four fingers below the knee."  according to their testimony.  This is also confirmed by the intern who buried the leg and the Chaplin at the hospital.  All of which testified to the miracle.  Further, the miracle was not just verified by the church, but also by the state.  In fact the testimonies were certified by the king's own royal record keeper and preserved.  There are 24 eye witness accounts, along with medical records, both of the amputation and of the restoration of the leg.  Why do you seek to mislead?  Again, as is so often the case, I am the one referencing evidence and facts, and the atheist just wants us to believe on faith that their version of the account is true.  

Yeah well did they testify personally at the tribunal or were depositions sent? I mean you believe this fantasy so you should know little details like that. Didn't one of them say something like "the guy" referring to who was supposed to have been his patient? Who was the objective investigating body or sleuth experts? Oh yeah, none. As in no evidence, your faith means nothing and exposes your ignorance of empirical evidence. In every joke there must be some element of truth in order for it to be funny. No one hardly knows of this because Catholicism itself doesn't believe it, otherwise it would be boasting it of all the time word wide. That would be because the critical thinker knows the leg, scars and all never was cut off. Maybe someone else's but not the one in question. Which brings us to this point once again, certain benign facts were used in this fabrication to deceive the gullible during the spanish inquisition. You've produced no evidence that disprove that fact. The jokes on you!

The following is a google translation of some of the testimony:

The original tribunal record is here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5325008951&view=1up&seq=136







Four witnesses who testified that the guy lost a leg by amputation at the hospital, that he stayed at the hospital.  And that 2 years and 7 months later the same guy had 2 legs.  I keep providing facts and evidence and you keep working in the faith realm.  Special pleading isn't evidence, @FactFinder.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist like you.  The evidence says the guy's leg was miraculously healed.  Your faith says it wasn't.  Which should I believe?

LOL, still don't get it do you? Educate yourself. You posted what I said. None took credit in person. They sent depositions. At least that is what the highlighted portions describes. Or was I supposed to sift through the boring predictable fantasy to make your case for you? They 'spoke' through assistants and nurses. But even if they did personally take credit before the king, it's a fantasy, myth. No objectivity in the authenticity process what so ever. A myth that got buried in the archives because the more intelligent cultists realized it's untrue. It takes faith to be a theist. It takes intellect to be atheist, no faith required. The only physical 'evidence' (a stretch at the very least for your position) overwhelmingly points to the guy in question never had his leg cut off because he still had it. 

Uh, no.  They each responded to questions.  And then answered if they agreed with the statement or not.   Juan de Estranga affirms the cutting off of the leg and that the guy with 2 legs, 2 years and 7 months later.  Diego Millaruelo says he was present when the leg was amputated.  You seem to be missing the miracle for trying to deny all the facts.  The four all testified to seeing the man at the hospital afterwards without his leg.  Again, I just can't ignore the facts and evidence.  I wish I had faith like yours, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  Still waiting on that scientific explanation how a leg that was sawed off grew back overnight 2 years and 7 months later.  What faith claim will you make next?

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Until there is any empirical/observable evidence, I think it's safe to assume that there is no God. But does that answer the original poster's question? No. First, as I previously stated, it would be helpful if the original poster was more specific. I mean, are they asking if praying works for being able to see tiny unicorns living in our anuses or what?

That being said, praying, in some sense, can work, but that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity, or at least it can be adequately explained by natural phenomena. 

I think you are mistaken.  No amount of empirical/observable evidence will be enough for the faithful atheist.  @FactFinder said he would believe if someone could show evidence of god restoring someone's lost limbs.  I  provided him meticulously documented evidence that literally had the royal seal of approval.  Barnadot said he would believe if he saw a miracle happen on youtube.  I provided the video of Delia Knox who was paralyzed and got up and walked at a prayer service.  Jules said he wanted to see peer reviewed documentation and medical records and I provided him many.  I gave him medical records, peer reviewed journals from JAMA, Harvard, Yale, Science Direct, Stanford, and the National Academy of Sciences.  I showed him that the bulk of studies on prayer shows it works.  There is never enough evidence for them.  Evidence does not matter, they believe what they believe because of their faith in atheism.  They will always just ignore anything that contradicts their faith claims.  

Don't lie. You presented findings of an internal cult tribunal that was seeking facts about a claim in order to package and put out for consumption during medieval times. They were looking for a miracle to sell the people on for their cult. They put some facts together. There was a guy. The town existed. Somebody got hurt and broke their leg. He went away to get better treatment, a 50 day journey.  The claim was made he had wet gangrene after the 50 day trip. A condition that takes about three day to kill from the onset, which takes about a day. Became a beggar, came back. Mom said he went to bed with one leg, woke up with two.  A couple of practitioners saw a guy with an amputated leg. None however testify to sawing the leg off. They checked the hospital burial site for the leg. Surprise it wasn't there. The guy with the broken leg had it still, so naturally it wouldn't be there. The cult however deemed the miracle true because the leg wasn't in the ground. Nowhere in the whole delusional story is there anything resembling evidence. It is a fantasy concocted by a cult for the believing gullible in the 1600s.   

Actually doctors, Juan de Estanga and Diego Millaruelo, carried out the operation. The leg was cut "four fingers below the knee."  according to their testimony.  This is also confirmed by the intern who buried the leg and the Chaplin at the hospital.  All of which testified to the miracle.  Further, the miracle was not just verified by the church, but also by the state.  In fact the testimonies were certified by the king's own royal record keeper and preserved.  There are 24 eye witness accounts, along with medical records, both of the amputation and of the restoration of the leg.  Why do you seek to mislead?  Again, as is so often the case, I am the one referencing evidence and facts, and the atheist just wants us to believe on faith that their version of the account is true.  

Yeah well did they testify personally at the tribunal or were depositions sent? I mean you believe this fantasy so you should know little details like that. Didn't one of them say something like "the guy" referring to who was supposed to have been his patient? Who was the objective investigating body or sleuth experts? Oh yeah, none. As in no evidence, your faith means nothing and exposes your ignorance of empirical evidence. In every joke there must be some element of truth in order for it to be funny. No one hardly knows of this because Catholicism itself doesn't believe it, otherwise it would be boasting it of all the time word wide. That would be because the critical thinker knows the leg, scars and all never was cut off. Maybe someone else's but not the one in question. Which brings us to this point once again, certain benign facts were used in this fabrication to deceive the gullible during the spanish inquisition. You've produced no evidence that disprove that fact. The jokes on you!

The following is a google translation of some of the testimony:

The original tribunal record is here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5325008951&view=1up&seq=136







Four witnesses who testified that the guy lost a leg by amputation at the hospital, that he stayed at the hospital.  And that 2 years and 7 months later the same guy had 2 legs.  I keep providing facts and evidence and you keep working in the faith realm.  Special pleading isn't evidence, @FactFinder.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist like you.  The evidence says the guy's leg was miraculously healed.  Your faith says it wasn't.  Which should I believe?

LOL, still don't get it do you? Educate yourself. You posted what I said. None took credit in person. They sent depositions. At least that is what the highlighted portions describes. Or was I supposed to sift through the boring predictable fantasy to make your case for you? They 'spoke' through assistants and nurses. But even if they did personally take credit before the king, it's a fantasy, myth. No objectivity in the authenticity process what so ever. A myth that got buried in the archives because the more intelligent cultists realized it's untrue. It takes faith to be a theist. It takes intellect to be atheist, no faith required. The only physical 'evidence' (a stretch at the very least for your position) overwhelmingly points to the guy in question never had his leg cut off because he still had it. 

Uh, no.  They each responded to questions.  And then answered if they agreed with the statement or not.   Juan de Estranga affirms the cutting off of the leg and that the guy with 2 legs, 2 years and 7 months later.  Diego Millaruelo says he was present when the leg was amputated.  You seem to be missing the miracle for trying to deny all the facts.  The four all testified to seeing the man at the hospital afterwards without his leg.  Again, I just can't ignore the facts and evidence.  I wish I had faith like yours, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  Still waiting on that scientific explanation how a leg that was sawed off grew back overnight 2 years and 7 months later.  What faith claim will you make next?

Uh no. You seem to missing the fact you only present hearsay, not evidence. Show me a leg that was cut off and then grew back. Some cult story they purposely buried because it had no tangible value to keep the gullible in the pews and paying them money doesn't count. Get it? I'm not supposed to give you evidence of your claim, you're supposed to supply that. A fairytale woven with benign facts doesn't count. Even if it is authenticated completely by the gullible and the manipulators involved in said cult. My lack of faith and intellect leads to this reality. Your faith compels your acceptance.

Oh wait?!?! my amputated leg just grew back. Wow it's the second time now counting your story!!! Believe me? LOL