Why are there no proof of miracles?

>>17780887 (OP)
There is, J.P. Holding has some on his site: https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2022/05/today-i-have-special-guest-piece-by.html

>>17780888
>dumb mud people said they saw magic
Whoa Harry Potter is literally real!

>>17780888
>well, there is no actual proof, so just believe what this specific unverified ancient book says
You can't use the Bible as proof of miracles retard, the same way you can't use Harry Pot- >>17780890 fuck you beat me to it

>>17780890
>>17780898
>didn't even read it
Unsurprising. The entire point are the sources outside the Bible that report these, and how they're the absolute best for the time.

>>17780902
Magic isn't real. You're a manchild.

>>17780928
You are incapable of giving a definition for the word "magic" that doesn't amount to "things I don't believe in". This is, ultimately, circular reasoning.

>>17780887 (OP)
By definition a miracle can't have proof, if it could be explained and understood then it wouldn't be a miracle.

>>17780947
>muh definition chasing
Dude come off it. You're literally saying that you believe in flying soldiers in the sky, and not the motorized kind.
You're just another dumb fat wicca chick, you're just being pretentious about it.

>>17780887 (OP)
Personhood is a miracle. How does a clump of cells magically get a soul? The development of a human being inside the womans womb will forever be a mystery.
>Ecc 11:5

>>17780968
>How does a clump of cells magically get a soul
It doesn't because there is no such thing as a soul

>>17780957
You can frame absolutely anything this way.

"You're literally saying you think invisible rays shoot through the air to make every piece of human knowledge appear on glowing rectangles worldwide because we taught rocks how to think using lightning"

"You're literally saying you believe that deep in the trees you can find floating glowing balls of fire that aren't hot that move away when you get close"

"You're literally saying that you believe in a house in heaven where people float and time goes slower"

>>17780971
These are all natural phenomena, magic isn't

>>17780970
>soulless

>>17780971
The difference is that you are framing things dishonestly while I'm just restating what your sources say.
Also it's funny that you're trying to legitimize your miracle by attempting to imply that it's like things which aren't miraculous at all.

>>17780977
Colloquial term

>>17780975
And what is "natural"? Isn't it natural when time goes slower as you go faster, so that eons could pass in seconds? Isn't it natural when you start to float because you've got high up? Isn't it natural when ignis fatuus glows in the trees?

Why would an angel be any less natural?

>>17780984
The supernatural is a flawed concept, if something exist it's natural; that doesn't mean magic and angels exist

>>17780980
Not a word that I wrote is dishonest. Everything I wrote is literally and absolutely true. There is nothing out of the ordinary that you can't frame as "You believe in that? THAT? Ridiculous".

That tells us that that approach isn't a good one. We need to take the evidence and see what it actually suggests. I would never have thought that going fast would make time slow down, but the evidence is strong. So evaluate the real evidence here, and give me your thoughts on that

>>17780986
>if something exist it's natural;
Then so too would angels if they exist. They would just be another kingdom of life: the plant, the fungus, the animal, the angel.

>>17780981
If you really believe people are just clumps of cells you have alot more to explain to your loved ones than me.

>>17780993
>Then so too would angels if they exist.
Yeah but they don't; that's why they are relegated to the real of fatasy and fiction

>>17780988
>Not a word that I wrote is dishonest.
No, it's actually incredibly dishonest. You attempted to put things into retard speak and in doing so made explicit errors sub as implying that we "taught rocks to think".
You're stuck between a rock and a hard place because on the one hand, you want to say that your miracle is just like known natural phenomena, but on the other hand, it's a miracle. This contradiction is cooking your brain and forcing you to make retarded arguments.
Case in point: the evidence is that superstitious mud people said so. Go read some Pliny next, you'll find some supernatural (cape)shit that you'll surely like, being the manchild that you are.

>>17780994
Appeal to emotion, not a valid argument; it'd be weirder to make up some undefined essence to justify caring about people

>>17780998
So then, what's your response to the evidence presented in >>17780888?

>>17781001
>as implying that we "taught rocks to think"
And is that leaving out any less than "you believe in flying soldiers!"? Our sources definitively portray these as supernatural beings.

>you want to say that your miracle is just like known natural phenomena, but on the other hand, it's a miracle
Isn't a miracle simply something done by a divine being? If divine beings exist, would that be any less natural than time dilation or zero gravity or any of the other aspects of the world that aren't part of day-to-day experience?

>mud people
Please define what a "mud person" is, anon. You keep making this point so clearly it's something important to you.

>Go read some Pliny next
This is like dismissing modern works because they're contemporaneous with David Icke. Every era has a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources.

But notice the huge difference here. The odd things Pliny talks about are largely misunderstandings about obscure things from far off lands. But these events here happened in one of the largest cities in the entire Empire. The same country as both of our sources, one of whom was a resident of the city and would have seen these himself, or had immediate access to an entire city of witnesses.

All taking place exactly when the most influential religious figure in history had said they would.

>>17780956
>bro there literally can't be a proof that there was a global flood
>it's physically impossible that this would leave evidence it wouldn't be a miracle otherwise
>oh my le daddy space jew the fact there's no evidence for the resurrection makes me want to believe in it even more

>>17781037
>And is that leaving out any less than "you believe in flying soldiers!"? Our sources definitively portray these as supernatural beings.
Saying we taught rocks to think is straight up false. Calling them flying soldiers is also me portraying them as supernatural.
>Isn't a miracle simply something done by a divine being? If divine beings exist, would that be any less natural than time dilation or zero gravity or any of the other aspects of the world that aren't part of day-to-day experience?
The natural reality is a reality of causal relations that can be reduced to basic interactions which can be described mathematically. What you are attempting to introduce here is clearly not that.
>Please define
Notice how this is all you can do.
>Every era has a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources.
Yeah every era has people saying magic is real. And you believe these people.

>>17781045
Who are you arguing with?

>>17780888
How come miracles always happen to shitskins? Why does Jesus never appear in Times Square and Gangnam styles?

>>17781060
This post -> >>17780956
Any more question, Jew worshiper?

>>17781066
Yes, why are you rambling about completely unrelated shit?

>>17780888
The Bible was pieces together hundreds of years after Christ and Christians have been known historically to alter things and even fabricate things in the historical documents they were making copies of.

>>17781059
>Saying we taught rocks to think is straight up false.
Where's copper come from?

>Calling them flying soldiers is also me portraying them as supernatural.
So if the events happened, would you agree they are miracles?

>The natural reality is a reality of causal relations that can be reduced to basic interactions which can be described mathematically. What you are attempting to introduce here is clearly not that.
And why is that? Everything can be described mathematically since the common factor to everything is that it involves amounts of things. Clearly this does as well.

>Notice how this is all you can do.
You keep appealing to words and categories rather than anything solid about history, so of course we have to talk about words and categories. Your arguments so far have been "I can define this as that, and that is false by definition".

>Yeah every era has people saying magic is real.
And what is "magic"?

>>17780887 (OP)
It's really hard (I'd argue impossible) to actually establish whether or not a purported phenomenon will never be able to be explained by natural laws.

>>17780887 (OP)
Science has not yet been able to disprove several Eucharistic miracles.

>>17781077
>Where's copper come from?
Copper is not a rock. Computers do not think.
>So if the events happened, would you agree they are miracles?
Yes.
>And why is that? Everything can be described mathematically since the common factor to everything is that it involves amounts of things. Clearly this does as well.
Everything can be described mathematically because causal relations within natural reality are quantitative relations. Harry Potter swinging his wand, saying a phrase in Latin and making shit levitate does not fit this framework because it's conceptual rather than quantitative.
>appeal to definition
So far your entire argument has been to insist that it actually wasn't a miracle but rather a normal natural phenomenon. Do you think the supernatural does not exist?

>>17781086
Those look like bloody tampons to me, ese.

>>17781086
>Eucharistic miracles.
all either happened 600 years ago or happens in some random Mexican village (and no scientists cant take it to test, it brings Father Juan Herendez too many donations)

>>17781089
>Copper is not a rock.
Where does copper come from?

>Computers do not think.
Matter of definition - they have functioning perceptron networks that take information input and then output information. I do believe the latest versions of this can truly be said to think. The practical difference between what they do and thinking is starting to be similar to quibbling over whether a nuclear submarine can swim or not

>Everything can be described mathematically because causal relations within natural reality are quantitative relations.
And what here wouldn't be quantitative?

>Harry Potter swinging his wand
Comparisons to fiction are meaningless here since fictions are nonexistent by definition

>has been to insist that it actually wasn't a miracle but rather a normal natural phenomenon
You're so close but missing the final step. Words like "miracle", "normal", and "natural" are all just relative categories. If we were faster, time dilation would be normal. If we take humans as animals and their actions simply as part of the ecosystem, us manufacturing synthetic chemicals is no less "natural" than our stomachs manufacturing their own acids. And if we were angels, "miracle" would describe anything we do.

Simply assigning a word to something tells us nothing about the world itself. Objectively, the events J.P. Holding has on his site there happened. And absent attempting to define them away with empty semantic arguments, they tell us something profound about our world.

>>17781086
>Have a supposed tissue sample of jesus
>Don't try to clone it, culture it, or even sequence its DNA

>>17781120
>Where does copper come from?
Irrelevant. You lied. X originally being encased in Y does not make X Y.
>they have functioning perceptron networks that take information input and then output information.
So does a car alarm.
>I do believe the latest versions of this can truly be said to think.
Because you're a retard.
>And what here wouldn't be quantitative?
The mechanism by which said magic/miracle operates.
>You're so close but missing the final step.
Go back to r*ddit, you smug retard. No, levitating objects by swinging a wooden wand and saying a phrase in latin is not natural.
>Objectively, the events J.P. Holding has on his site there happened.
You're superstitious like an old gypsy.

>>17780887 (OP)
>proof of miracles
You will start to see them with all the cgi and A.I. going around, and you still won't believe.

>>17781131
>X originally being encased in Y does not make X Y.
Copper isn't merely encased in copper ores, it's chemically bonded to them

>So does a car alarm.
Car alarms don't use perceptrons: https://www.britannica.com/technology/perceptrons

>Because you're a retard.
What stunning and original oratory over here!

>The mechanism by which said magic/miracle operates.
Not so. The only thing this wouldn't apply to is something being made directly from nothing, which not even angels can do - only an omnipotent being could do that. Anything else has to participate in causal chains.

>levitating objects by swinging a wooden wand and saying a phrase in latin
Comparisons to fiction are meaningless here since fictions are nonexistent by definition. Notice you can't use an analogy with anything non-fictional? Because it would immediately show the fundamental flaw with the entire way you're reasoning here. It's empty semantics.

>You're superstitious
What is a "superstition"?

>>17781148
>Copper isn't merely encased in copper ores, it's chemically bonded to them
Irrelevant. Copper wire is not a rock. You lied.
>Car alarms don't use perceptrons
So as long as there's a perceptron involved, it's thinking? It's nice of you to share your personal definition.
>Anything else has to participate in causal chains.
Harry Potter swinging his wand, saying shit in Latin and making shit levitate is also a causal chain, that doesn't mean it operates on a quantitative basis. To the contrary.
>Comparisons to fiction are meaningless here since fictions are nonexistent by definition. Notice you can't use an analogy with anything non-fictional?
Yeah it's because there's nothing non-fictional that doesn't operate on a quantitative basis. That's why the comparison with Harry Potter is so apt.
>What is a "superstition"?
You don't know what superstition is, Mr. Peterson?

>>17781060
Excellent rebuttal, you really tackled his points there

>>17781167
There's nothing to rebut, his reply is complete nonsense and unrelated to what I said. It looks like he assumed I'm a Christian and started sperging out about what he thinks I believe instead of arguing with what's in my post.

>miracles can't happen
>men can become women

>>17781165
>Copper wire is not a rock.
Where does copper come from?

>So as long as there's a perceptron involved, it's thinking?
I'd say so. That seems to be the most objective way to say what really counts as a "thought", and what shows is the physical essence of what's going on in our own brains as we think. It's our own organic perceptron network evaluating an input

>Yeah it's because there's nothing non-fictional that doesn't operate on a quantitative basis.
And neither would angels.

>You don't know what superstition is
I don't know how you're using the term. Much like "mud people" you appear to consider it a label you can affix to anything (even members of the Roman government at the height of its empire) to render it unreliable. So I need some further explanation: what is "superstition"?

>>17781184
>Where does copper come from?
X coming from Y does not mean that X is Y. You lied.
>That seems to be the most objective way to say what really counts as a "thought", and what shows is the physical essence of what's going on in our own brains as we think. It's our own organic perceptron network evaluating an input
Of course you have no proof of this though.
>And neither would angels.
Are angels subject to physical laws? Are they composed of particles? When an angel uses his splendorous power, can it be reduced to primitive things in motion reacting to each other in mathematically predictable ways?
>I don't know how you're using the term.
I'm using it the way it is normally used. Imagine you're reading a book and one character says. "Old John? I heard he was a superstitious fellow." That's the way I'm using it.
Get it now, Jordan?

>>17780888
Does it include flying jews? Why doesn't god do flying jews any more?

>>17781070
I'm not. Next question?

>>17781196
>X coming from Y does not mean that X is Y
Is it less proper than simply referring to angels as "flying soldiers"?

>Of course you have no proof of this though.
Proof of...what, exactly? These arrangements of copper are called neural networks for a reason.

>When an angel uses his splendorous power, can it be reduced to primitive things in motion reacting to each other in mathematically predictable ways?
Of course. Anything that isn't ex nihilio must be.

>I'm using it the way it is normally used. Imagine you're reading a book and one character says. "Old John? I heard he was a superstitious fellow." That's the way I'm using it.
Then it becomes useless in a serious discussion. It simply means "someone who disagrees with me about the way the world operates". Is Old John being called superstitious because he believes in the will-o'-the-wisp? (I.E. ignis fatuus). That would be the best comparison here. "Tales of floating fires that aren't hot in the night out in the swamp...Old John that superstitious fellow".

Many things are dismissed because they're unfamiliar rather than because they're untrue. Be careful of that trap, it's an easy one to fall in.

>>17781075
>silence
Lmaoooooooo
All God has to do is have Jesus Gangnam style in Times Square and everyone could be saved. But he doesn’t but he will make a cracker bleed in some mud village somewhere (and no you can’t test it).

Refute this, devil worshipers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--TrKPVIaDQ

>>17781107
>or happens in some random Mexican village
That picture is from the miracle of Buenos Aires, not a "random village"
>and no scientists cant take it to test
Plenty of scientists have examined them

>>17780887 (OP)
There is so much proof for miracles
Just look into St. Philomena alone
https://youtu.be/4YxrBoFLzYA?si=kiWrIpZP6PtM2-cD

inb4
>uhhh that evidence doesn't count as evidence because... it just doesn't!

>>17781075
you're genuinely retarded, pick up a fucking book.
>>17781224
no one responded to your retarded point because its factually wrong and schizo brained.

>All God has to do is have Jesus Gangnam style in Times Square and everyone could be saved
They brutally murdered him the last time. I think its safe to say he's hesitant, retard.

>>17781324
A nearly hour long sermon with terrible audio quality isn't evidence, no.

>>17781333
You can look into her yourself, I never claimed you need the video

>>17781334
Will I be disappointed if I look her up and the story goes something like:
>a long time ago in some place some guy claimed that perhaps maybe allegedly there was a possibility that someone was sick then they got better, and since these people are clearly not biased towards wanting to believe in the healing power of prayers they can guarantee that there was a 100% proven direct correlation between the prayer and the recovery because the praying person happened to thank the wishbone or pinky of some saint
Because that's how all of these supposed miracles go

>>17781351
here's scientific research on prayer working, jimbo.

>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2802370/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9287623/
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2802370/

>>17781324
Was this recorded on a potato?

>>17781359
>an Indian "study" done with 219 women
>a paywall'd study not referenced by any other papers
>the same Indian shit again
"Yeah bro, trust the science! (but only the ones that suit me)"
https://earthsciences.uconn.edu/2021/07/19/science-has-no-measure-for-strength-of-prayer/

>>17781359
If it works then why didn't the pregnancy rate rise to 100% for the ones receiving prayers? Do they work or not? In the cases when they don't work, why?

>>17780887 (OP)
Every breath you take to post more shitty bait threads is a miracle. Every moment of your life is a miracle. You don’t need to be religious to realize this. Stop wasting your limited time on this tired bullshit.
>inb4 what about u
I just hope someone here sees this and decides to go outside.

>>17781415
100% of prayers are heard. The answer is sometimes "no."

>>17781484
>100% of prayers are heard.
How can you know this?
>The answer is sometimes "no."
What determines if it's a yes or a no? Is it how you pray? Is it who is praying? Is it who is being prayed for? Is it what the prayer is for?

>>17781494
God is omnipotent. He can hear every thought, every word, and every prayer.

>How do you know this?
Read the Bible, bud.

“He’ll give us what we need. It may not be what we want” - Ye

>>17781506
So the women in that study did not need to go forth and multiply, they were unworthy in their desire to fulfill the traditional role of a woman?

>>17781512
No those women probably end up in some kind of extraordinary circumstance in the future that would’ve made it extremely difficult to raise the child. And God having foresight said “No, thats not a good idea for you”

Or who tf knows? Im not god I don’t know his reasons.

>>17781530
>>No those women probably end up in some kind of extraordinary circumstance in the future that would’ve made it extremely difficult to raise the child.
That can't be the determining factor because children are raised under extremely difficult and poor circumstances all the time.
>And God having foresight said “No, thats not a good idea for you”
...but he allows children to be born into absolutely horrible conditions?

>>17781506
Is this nigga seriously quoting Kanye West over here

>>17781217
>Is it less proper than simply referring to angels as "flying soldiers"?
Yes, because you're literally straight up lying and I'm merely using the same sort of description as Tacitus and Josephus.
But to be fair, I'm used to the fact that most Christians are pathological liars.
>Proof of...what, exactly? These arrangements of copper are called neural networks for a reason.
They are called neural networks by analogy, not because your brain is built literally the same as Claude.
>Of course. Anything that isn't ex nihilio must be.
This does not logically follow. But in any case, it's interesting that you believe in purely materialistic angels. So how do they fly?
>Is Old John being called superstitious because he believes in the will-o'-the-wisp?
Great analogy! Does John believe the will-o'-the-wisp is a ghost or a spirit? That would be comparable to your belief in flying soldiers, and it's a perfect example of a superstition! Thank you!
>Many things are dismissed because they're unfamiliar rather than because they're untrue. Be careful of that trap, it's an easy one to fall in.
Such words are to be expected coming from someone who's superstitious like an old gypsy.

>>17781870
>you're literally straight up lying
Not if someone knows where copper comes from P:

>I'm merely using the same sort of description as Tacitus and Josephus
True or false: neither are saying these were regular soldiers

>They are called neural networks by analogy, not because your brain is built literally the same as Claude
A) What's this tangent have to do with the topic at hand, exactly?
B) There's no fundamental difference in the way copper perceptrons and our neurons form these connections

>This does not logically follow.
For anything where things aren't being generated ex nihilio, there's some amount of things that have some finite number of possibilities available to them. That's why mathematical modeling works with anything: everything always involves amounts, and math is simply the study of amounts

>in any case, it's interesting that you believe in purely materialistic angels
Depends on what exactly you mean by "materialistic". The only options aren't "can cause ex nihilio" and "is made of ordinary matter". They might be, or they might not be, it isn't known

>So how do they fly?
Ultimately we don't know the answer to any physical "how" question at all. Keep asking "how?" for anything and you hit a wall pretty quickly. How does a ball fall when someone lets go of it? At the base level, we really don't know.

Clearly though there's no shortage of ways to achieve flight, so this is hardly some obstacle

>Does John believe the will-o'-the-wisp is a ghost or a spirit?
To apply that analogy, are you saying these events did happen, but the beings and the voice and the light from heaven and so on weren't caused by something with a mind?

>>17781261
>the miracle of Buenos Aires
Shitskin nation. Do it in the Vatican.
>Plenty of scientists
And their findings?

>>17781328
>They brutally murdered him the last time. I think it’s safe to say he's hesitant, retard.
Are you implying that he HAS to have a physical form? Can he not project himself like the quadrillion Mary “apparitions”.

>>17781917
>Not if someone knows where copper comes from P:
Are you retarded? You came out of a vagina, that doesn't mean you're a vagina. Copper is not a rock, period. Fucking liar, typical Christian. Pathological liars, the lot of you.
>True or false: neither are saying these were regular soldiers
Quote where I said they were regular soldiers, you lying piece of shit.
>A) What's this tangent have to do with the topic at hand, exactly?
You're the one who brought it up, you dishonest piece of garbage.
>B) There's no fundamental difference in the way copper perceptrons and our neurons form these connections
Prove it.
>For anything where things aren't being generated ex nihilio, there's some amount of things that have some finite number of possibilities available to them. That's why mathematical modeling works with anything: everything always involves amounts, and math is simply the study of amounts
Harry Potter example debunks this.
>Depends on what exactly you mean by "materialistic". The only options aren't "can cause ex nihilio" and "is made of ordinary matter". They might be, or they might not be, it isn't known
Are they reducible to fundamental particles?
>Ultimately we don't know the answer to any physical "how" question at all. Keep asking "how?" for anything and you hit a wall pretty quickly. How does a ball fall when someone lets go of it? At the base level, we really don't know.
Petersonian garbage. There's a satisfyingly answer to how planes fly.
>To apply that analogy, are you saying these events did happen, but the beings and the voice and the light from heaven and so on weren't caused by something with a mind?
No, when did I say that? Not all superstitions need to necessarily be based on actual observations.
Do you believe emperor Vespasian actually healed a blind guy with spit? Or do you believe he didn't and the story is based on a misunderstanding?

>>17780887 (OP)
>muh proooofs
Miracles happen every morning the Sun rises and we thank God for not destroying Earth the night before

>>17780887 (OP)
We're living in a miracle, baby. Unless you think it was just luck that energy spontaneously existed, created an explosion that invented time and space, then created the perfect conditions for advanced beings to live on a planet. Probably a ton out there, too, but we'll never get to meet them.

>>17780887 (OP)
There is proof for at least one of the miracles (the most important one), and the more testing we do on it, the more it suggests that the resurrection actually happened. However, tons of people still reject this which kind of proves the point that even if Jesus were walking, talking, and healing people right in front of you, some people would still reject him-- just like they did back in the day. So why doesn't God give you, the main character, personal evidence? Because you wouldn't believe it anyway.

>>17780887 (OP)
if we go by secular views, Life itself is a miracle
statistically, we shouldn't be here yet we are

>>17781962
>Copper is not a rock, period
What is it when we first find it?

>Quote where I said they were regular soldiers
You're objecting to me not explicitly specifying smelting copper ores, but consider the omission of the angelic nature of these beings to be a less significant omission?

>You're the one who brought it up
In a simple linguistic analogy, it isn't something directly related to our conversation.

>Prove it.
Why? This is a clearly irrelevant tangent. But if you insist:
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/neural-networks/Neuron/#:~:text=Neural%20Networks%20%2D%20Neuron&text=The%20perceptron%20is%20a%20mathematical,are%20represented%20as%20numerical%20values.

>Harry Potter example debunks this.
Once again that's not an example at all, it is a fiction. Unless you intend for it to be some sort of thought experiment. If we really did have magic wands that could generate rabbits in hats, they would accomplish this one of two ways:
A) Transforming something else. And like any physical transformation, this could be mathematically modeled.
B) Not transforming something else. Creating it ex nihilio. This would mean that it is omnipotent since if you can create one thing ex nihilio, you can create anything ex nihilio, for the interesting reason explained here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ie7t82tQhp4

>Are they reducible to fundamental particles?
Yes, nothing can be infinitely divisible so everything is. (#FinitismGang) Though of course they could be a single fundamental particle of whatever they are made of

>There's a satisfyingly answer to how planes fly.
Can you provide me with this satisfying answer?

>>17781962
>No
I fail to see how it's an analogy, then

>Do you believe emperor Vespasian actually healed
Yes! That's further evidence here. Notice all of this concerns the destruction of Israel and Jerusalem. That's what these signs were warning of and what Jesus had been warning of. It's what almost the entire book of Revelation is about and the focus of what are commonly misunderstood as "end times" prophecies. (End of Jerusalem and Israel, not the world)

Who was the first commander in this war? Vespasian. He was the Antichrist.

>>17781870
>Thank you!
I was on your side until you decided to be a passive-aggressive condescending fag

>>17780887 (OP)
I have proof of anti-miracle (dark magic)
Also there are supernatural entities manipulating the environment around me

>>17782339
And magical force making weird stuff appear and disappear moments after

I mean I think I ate a second Forbidden Fruit or something (during subconscious ritual digestion and magic)

I prayed to God and He said miracles don't exist

>>17780887 (OP)
>why is the metaphysical not quantifiable
Because then, by definition, it would be physical.

>>17780887 (OP)
>Why are there no proof of miracles?

Yes, the existence of white people is the most obvious.

>>17782339
do they touch your weiner

>>17782126
>What is it when we first find it?
Irrelevant, you disgusting pathological liar. Copper is NOT a rock.
>You're objecting to me not explicitly specifying smelting copper ores, but consider the omission of the angelic nature of these beings to be a less significant omission?
Saying that copper is a rock is a lie. Saying that what Tacitus and Josephus describe are flying soldiers is not a lie.
It's simple as that, but you're a pathological liar who can't help himself because you LOVE lying for Jesus more than you love live itself.
>In a simple linguistic analogy, it isn't something directly related to our conversation.
Then don't try to wedge it into the conversation and continue debating it, dishonest piece of shit.
>Why? This is a clearly irrelevant tangent. But if you insist:
Does not prove what you're trying to prove.
>If we really did have magic wands that could generate rabbits in hats
You're a dishonest lying piece of garbage. Nowhere did I mention generating rabbits in hats, trash.
>Yes, nothing can be infinitely divisible so everything is. (#FinitismGang) Though of course they could be a single fundamental particle of whatever they are made of
Are those fundamental particles reducible to mathematically specified properties akin to those of actual fundamental particles?
>Can you provide me with this satisfying answer?
Sorry, not falling for your Petersonian grift.
>I fail to see how it's an analogy, then
Because you're dumb as shit. Lots of superstitious have to do with tales of magical persons that are either inspired by natural phenomena or made up of whole cloth. Regardless of whether it's exaggerated or poetically described weather phenomena (which would be akin to Pliny's descriptions of the eruption at Pompeii) or a complete fabrication, the shoe fits.
>Yes!
What was the molecular composition of Vespasian's spit? By what causal mechanism did it become that way?

>>17783031
>Copper is NOT a rock
>Saying that copper is a rock is a lie
You're dumb

>>17783031
>Copper is NOT a rock.
Does pic related show both A) a rock and B) copper?

>Saying that copper is a rock is a lie. Saying that what Tacitus and Josephus describe are flying soldiers is not a lie.
Your objection to what I'm saying highlights exactly what I was trying to show in regards to how you described what was seen. It misses hugely important nuances and distinctions. Can the copper in copper ore be described as rock? Yes, but one of those "yes"s that you say with a deep sigh. Similarly, can these angels in the sky be described as "flying soldiers"? Yes...but you sigh even deeper with that yes.

Do you see what I'm saying? Without being strictly false, you can word anything such that it sounds unreasonable and outlandish. To most people, the claim "angels came at one of the most religiously significant moments in history, and we have solid evidence" doesn't sound unreasonable or outlandish, but like something interesting to look further into. Just as "we can put copper to interesting uses in logic circuits" doesn't sound unreasonable or outlandish. You have to leave out important nuances and start talking about flying soldiers and thinking rocks to make these sound outlandish and silly.

>Does not prove what you're trying to prove
It seems to to me, I even gave you the text highlighted. Can you explain why what was provided is insufficient?

>Nowhere did I mention generating rabbits in hats
Anon that's just a standard example of magic o_o Replace that with whatever else you have magic doing in your thought experiment

>Are those fundamental particles reducible to mathematically specified properties akin to those of actual fundamental particles?
Of course

>that are either inspired by natural phenomena or made up of whole cloth
Which do you believe to be more probable here with what was seen in Jerusalem?

>molecular composition of Vespasian's spit
Unknown, evaporated centuries ago.

>>17783347
>JESUS CHRIST MARIE
>IT'S A MINERAL