re: #55 EPR-radar

According to the RCC’s own rules, it isn’t a miracle if there is some easy natural explanation.

Mother Theresa was declared a saint on the grounds of only one documented miracle. And that miracle was that she supposedly cured a woman of cancer, despite that woman’s husband coming forward to say that doctors were responsible for her recovery. Mull that over.

Here’s an easy counter-example. A non-material soul, usually immortal, is a common element of religious belief, and there is no naturalistic explanation for such a soul. Thus anyone who believes that god has something to do with souls (e.g., rewards and punishment in an afterlife) has beliefs about divine activity that are distinguishable from natural events.

And Nyet just accused me of moving goalposts. The conversation was about what is or isn’t falsifiable, and “souls” most certainly aren’t. Outside of religious faith, there is no reason to believe a “non-material soul, usually immortal” exists, nor is there anyway to disprove the existence of a soul. It is entirely untestable.