That's one in gazillions of copouts you could have come up with.

You're excluding all of the evidence I'm presenting in two ways, by claiming I'm copying and pasting it and by claiming I don't understand it.

Juries don't buy that bullshit, you need EVIDENCE, and your belief your brain is magically telling mine it doesn't have any control is ludicrously preposterous.

God is not a god or any god, these are different and incompatible terms.

It's an absence of belief that gods exist? You're not specifying what gods you're talking about. Also, who, what, why, when, where and by what means and in what way?

You can tell me you "lack belief" but you're believing stuff that doesn't exist and there is no science for over what you're doing each moment backed by 300 sigma. I don't believe you.

If we don't have control over brain function then how do we have control over it? How are you making me aware of your position that we don't have control over brain function. How is your brain working it out that I need to know how you don't have any control over it?

I gave you Daniel Dennett's nonsense about exactly what you're referring to a couple of days ago.

Here, I'll post it again, notice the part in bold, his prophetic truth.

*Intentionality?*

In _The Intentional Stance,_ Daniel Dennett offers a third-person account of intentionality. He discussed the difficulties in attributing a belief to an individual by interpreting behavior and suggests:

it is quite plausible to suppose that in principle (if not yet in practice) it would be possible to confirm these simple, objective belief attributions _by finding something in the believers head_ -- by finding the beliefs themselves, in effect.... If you do believe [there is milk in the refrigerator] that's a perfectly objective fact about you, and it must come down in the end to your brain's being in some particular physical state. If we know more about the physiological psychology, we could in principle determine the facts about your brain state and determine whether or not you believe there is milk in the fridge even if you were determined to be silent or disingenuous about the topic. - Dennett (1987), p. 14.

Naturalists often wave their hands dramatically at crucial points expecting assent. In fact, Dennett's claim is quasi-fact. It is physically impossible to have detailed knowledge of brain states Dennett's supposition requires (p. 11). Even if we did, how would we identify a belief? - God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis

The part in bold is about what I wrote to you earlier how we don't have the technology to prove a belief exists in the human brain and the part right here above about how it's physically impossible to have detailed knowledge of brain states...

Stating "I don't believe in gods" is not "the denial of the deity claim." They're two entirely different categories, and person experience.

Dismissing the whole of science by claiming "you don't understand it" while you aren't marking the distinctions between correlation v. causation isn't helping you score any points with the judges, in this case me.

including sensory perception and emotion and other such "events of consciousness", can be affected by physical interference in the brain. — whollyrolling

Correlation is not causation.

Let's say I yield the 300 sigma based on you having a position that says, "It's all been invalidated." You're still stuck with our noetic subsystem of mind being evaluative and supervisory. You're still stuck with the Hard Problem of Consciousness as a believer in naturalism.

You'd still be putting forward "atheism; naturalism; epiphenomenalism; functionalism; behaviorism; intertheoretic reductionism; psychoneural identity theory; & determinism (causal; motivational; & hedonistic)" without any evidence whatsoever for me to even say, "All that has been invalidated."

Neuroscientists have done no such thing.
The human brain contains approximately 10^11 neurons, each with about 10,000 dendrites extending from them (Blinkov and Glezer, (1968) The Human Brain in Figures and Tables.) Some, the Purkinje cells, have up to 200,000 synapses. (Diagrams of them look like hedges.) The cerebral cortex is responsible for higher brain functions, including the generation of most mental state contents. It is estimated to contain 60-240 trillion (0.6-2.4X10^14) synapses (60 trillion by Shepherd (1998), The Synaptic Organization of the Brain, p.6; 150 trillion in Pakkenberg, et al. (2003), "Aging and the human neocortex"; 240 trillion by Koch (1999), Biophysics of Computation Information Processing in Single Neurons, p.87).

X-ray computer tomography (CT) cannot study the brain's soft tissue. PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans can trace tagged substances. They detect gamma rays from positron emitting radioisotopes, which damage tissues. The positrons travel a few millimeters before being annihilated to produce gamma rays. Thus, PET has millimeter resolution. To minimize radiation damage, millions of events are used as opposed to billions in CT scans. The number of events in both types of scan is woefully small compared to 100 trillion synapses. Multiphoton microscopy gives 3-D images with high spatial and temporal resolutions (Segelken (2004) "CU Laser Microscopy Technique Settles Brain Chemistry Debate, Could Aid Studies of Alzheimer's, Stroke Damage."), and can be used to study intracellular processes in living brain cells. Unfortunately, it has a small field of view and is limited to structures visible light can penetrate.

God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism.

The effect is detectable by our senses. It's 300 sigma. 300 standard deviations from a normal distribution. My eyes see it, my ears hear it, I am informed. It's not just the 300 sigma, I'm directing my awareness each waking moment.

I'm doing it now as I'm typing these words & sentences to you, it's an ongoing experience tangible to my every sense.

"for them," yeah, they're deluded. I don't need to hear "I'm an atheist." That doesn't advance, "The denial of the deity claim."

Before they can be activated they necessarily require me to make the bald assertion, "a deity exists" so they can be instantiated as "atheists" but they're telling me a priori, "I'm an atheist."

It's the argument of a retarded child on the 4th grade playground.

After I told you about 300 sigma you claimed in essence, "You're out to lunch" and then the same thing you've been claiming about the phenomenology of psychic experience since that time.

People trying to put forward their position while denying that of their opponent will disregard any and all contradictions to their position. You don't want there to be the supernatural, but that simply isn't the case.

Do you want to take a look-see at the 300?

"Uncaused cause" is an argument put forward by naturalists because that's what they feel they can tackle.

"Miracles are things inspiring awe and wonder, so not all miracles violate the laws of nature. Some conform to the uniform way things work. Some do not. God is self-explaining, but not self causing. Causes make what was only potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and was never merely potential and so needs no prior cause. Peace, Dennis

I agree that many miracles are consistent with the order of nature. Some are not. God is self-explaining, not self causing. Causes make what was potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and so was never potential and in need of being actualized. Peace, Dennis"

Dfpolis is a contributor here.

Try to tackle this.

You disagree with the presence of 300 sigma and the fact I have a Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux, the greatest trophy awarded to anyone in human history.

If all your argument does is dismiss out of hand all the contradictions to your argument then you need a new strategy.

You wrote, "your god nonsense is not on the same level."

God is not a god or any god, these are different and incompatible terms. In Richard Dawkins' God is Too Complex to Exist, Dick is not talking about a god or any god. Is Thor too complex to exist? Of course not.

I'm really surprised in just the last couple of weeks I've been a part of this community the argument is over whether or not "gods" exist.

Whatever the essence, the "people" claiming "atheism" don't like the term I use, "God hater."

They're telling me, "atheist" and I tell them "God hater." I think that's fair, don't you?

I'm a student 10 years (or so, maybe 8) under the tutelage of a physicist whose specialty is God v. Naturalism. His 67 video curriculum matches his book: God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism. I transcribed nearly all of his videos and I typewrote his entire book including the footnotes.

If you really want to know.
If spiritual longings evolved in the same way as our desires for food, drink, sex and knowledge, how could those longings be incapable of fulfilment? Imagine two genetic lines, one of which spends significant time and resources searching for mucta, which does not exist, and another like it in all respects except for the mucta-drive. Cleary, the second line will out-compete the first. For such evolutionary competition, we need the two variants, each able to pass its mucta-desire trait on to its heirs.

If we take mucta to be God, the naturalist hypothesis points to the demise of spirituality. Is this hypothesis viable? There are atheists who profess no spiritual longings, and they tend to pass their position on to their children. So, while the preconditions for the evolutionary demise of spirituality exist, theists are not an extinct variant, but the majority of the population. So, spirituality is adaptive. Its adaptiveness is confirmed by the correlation of spiritual behavior with health, psychological well-being and longevity.7 Thus, if evolutionary psychology correctly accounts for the development of behavior, including spiritual behavior, it is hard to see how the quest for God could be baseless. At the very least, naturalists attacking religion and spirituality are working to reduce human fitness.

7 Hummer, et al. (1999), "Religious Participation and U.S. Adult Mortality." See also ScienceDaily (1999), "Research Shows Religion Plays a Major Role in Health, Longevity." Maselko, et al. (2006), "Religious Service Attendance and Decline in Pulmonary Function in a High Functioning Elderly Cohort." See also ScienceDaily (2006a), "Go to Church and Breathe Easier." Maselko, et al. (2008), "Religious Service Attendance and Spiritual Well-Being are Differently Associated with Risk of Major Depression," See also ScienceDaily (2006), "Weekly Religious Attendance Nearly as Effective as Statins and Exercise in Extending Life."

I only had to remember one word "mucta." But he talks about little else throughout his book, 1000 authoritative case references, more with the videos, and each one of those science books has maybe 100 references.

Love to me is more important than science, or I guess I would say, "Love and science must be joined at the hip for maximum existential penetration."

I like the Plato reference. I think God informs every rational creature by directly relating to each one individually. For Non-atheists to look for direct proof outside of that direct relation is not only futile, it is the pagan sin of idolatry. - Merk.

First thing this year I agree with 100%, that's great work/great insight.

I think we're in agreement, just not about "non-atheist." The word "atheism" is incoherent by the tens of thousands of different claims the claimed adherents make.

We're all "non" things that don't exist.

The Truth is that I direct my awareness every waking moment and a lot when I'm sleeping. The phenomenology of psychic experience undeniably falsifies naturalism; atheism; functionalism; behaviorism; epiphenomenalism; intertheoretic reductionism; psychoneural identity theory; & determinism (causal; motivational; & hedonistic).

If you reject the direct evidence our noetic subsystem of mind is evaluative and supervisory, then there's still the logic of Sherlock Holmes. If you rule out all of the other possibilities and all the other possibilities here are those suggested by materialism then what is left must be true and what is left is that there is an immaterial subsystem which is responsible for awareness.

The word 'God' has a bad rap from the God hater position and that's why I didn't use it in the comment you replied to.

I meant in a universal sense in the way Dr. William Craig shares in his debates with God haters, "The direct witness of the Holy Spirit."

Do you honestly believe the Creator of the universe, the ongoing source for all reality has a problem with informing everyone He exists? Of course not. I sin, and when I do I don't think about God but I know God still exists because I'm a rational featherless biped.

Exactly, no depth, but you're glorifying the quality of devotion your friends have, rightly so. I'm the deepest religious person you'll ever come across, the most religious in the history of mankind. Why? Because I was given a Holy Cross on a mountain when I was born.

Here's a picture of my Dad/The USA giving it to me, less than 1/2 way down the page.

In case you didn't notice, I was taking a stab at you before.https://riversandlands.org/mt-rubidoux-peak-campaign-2018/mt-rubidoux-history/

Hi, if our culture is even a factor of how we choose the right course of action then its entire foundation is corrupt.

I've seen this line of reasoning for 11 years from so-called "atheists." They claim emphatically and dogmatically, & continuously, "We're all born atheists, it's a scientific fact" and their leader, the most vociferous of the four horsemen of the new atheist apocalypse, a self proclaimed "militant atheist" emphatically states, "If you're born in Iran, you're a Muslim."

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the science in the major premise is disavowed by their greatest scientist.

Evolutionary psychology is problematic because evolution has no interest in the truth about anything.

Hi, your friends are deeply religious and you're an "atheist" but how deep does the denial of the deity claim go?

The direct evidence of God is the witness of God.

How are you doing? My life is going great, made the best candle ever last night. I wish we could post pictures here. It's a 5 layered in blue whale candle for the receptionist at the Recovery Innovations main office here in Riverside Ca. I'm taking them about 8 candles and 8 of my best soaps for outpatients & staff.

Anyway, yes, everything is explained by God and everything else has a cause with God as the underlying substrate. (or Substrate if you prefer).

God is Fully Actualized
Miracles are things inspiring awe and wonder, so not all miracles violate the laws of nature. Some conform to the uniform way things work. Some do not. God is self-explaining, but not self causing. Causes make what was only potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and was never merely potential and so needs no prior cause. Peace, Dennis

I agree that many miracles are consistent with the order of nature. Some are not. God is self-explaining, not self causing. Causes make what was potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and so was never potential and in need of being actualized. Peace, Dennis

These are copy and pastes of Dr. Dennis Polis (contributor here Dfpolis) in a conversation with a naturalist. Sometimes I copy and paste both parts, but don't have them here.

Hi Frank, the words 'God' and 'god' are different words which mean different things, sorry, I'm not trying to be patronizing. God is Supreme Being and a god or any god can be mythological, a person with exceptional talent, a balcony seat in a theater and a person who sits there.

There is no one to one correspondence (mapping onto reality) of a mythological god being real because the word "myth" prevents it.

That's coercive.

I'm very sorry you're not getting this, but we can't believe for someone else. You're claiming atheism to me, or I'm using it as an analogy, doesn't inform me of anything real.

Hi Frank, we know people can be idolized or godded.

When someone tells me "I'm an atheist, I don't have any beliefs" - Lawrence Krauss in a debate with William Craig, I know they're lying. I can't know he believes he's an "atheist" I only know he's telling me that. Whether he believes it or not doesn't matter, I know he's lying about the part of believing. Think of all things we believe are true but don't have 100% certainty about.

*Intentionality?*

In _The Intentional Stance,_ Daniel Dennett offers a third-person account of intentionality. He discussed the difficulties in attributing a belief to an individual by interpreting behavior and suggests:

it is quite plausible to suppose that in principle (if not yet in practice) it would be possible to confirm these simple, objective belief attributions _by finding something in the believers head_ -- by finding the beliefs themselves, in effect.... If you do believe [there is milk in the refrigerator] that's a perfectly objective fact about you, and it must come down in the end to your brain's being in some particular physical state. If we know more about the physiological psychology, we could in principle determine the facts about your brain state and determine whether or not you believe there is milk in the fridge even if you were determined to be silent or disingenuous about the topic. - Dennett (1987), p. 14.

Naturalists often wave their hands dramatically at crucial points expecting assent. In fact, Dennett's claim is quasi-fact. It is physically impossible to have detailed knowledge of brain states Dennett's supposition requires (p. 11). Even if we did, how would we identify a belief? - God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis

You know what would be cool? If what you typed there had something to do with anything I've said. That's certainly a list of words, though.

Thank you, I have many such lists including a real long one I got from a so-called self professed "naturalist" when I asked for evidence the "brain produces the mind." Got it in a data base, 30 books 100 articles, about 1,000 different hypotheses.

Think about this Mr. Station, if when you talked and I responded the best I could to what you said without changing things up much, then that wouldn't be very interesting for either of us.

"Something to do with what I said." Instantly my stream of consciousness took me back to what must be all of our favorite philosophical movie, The Big Lebowski.

Walter: Oh, please, dear! For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!

The Dude: Walter, this is not a First Amendment thing, man.

Hi Frank, I've come to a conclusion that if when I'm talking to a young lady I'm interested in then my chances are greatly improved telling her, "I'm a lion tamer" rather than the truth, "I'll never treat you right, I'm a chronic masturbator."

That's why I never understood why people do that, claim a position. On what grounds? I think reality should be like that movie, the first part, where no one ever lies, The Invention of Lying. She takes a call during their dinner date, "No mom, I won't be having sex with him. He's fat, has a snub nose, a frog in the face." The look on his face hearing that is priceless.

When I tell someone, "I believe in the existence of God" what have I told them that they can know? Nothing. That's why "the denial of the deity claim" and "coming out atheist" have no relationship.

Bernard Carr, a cosmologist and self proclaimed "atheist/naturalist" I think says it best, "If you don't want God then you better have a multiverse." See, God does something real, that's why His opponents are always trying to replace His Holy acts with something not so holy.

When a person testifies to a magic trick that's different than my noetic subsystem of mind being evaluative & supervisory.

Wow, I'm blown away by the progress you've all made here in my absence.

Doing drugs, being an addict, I missed some times I could have and should have spent with my son. It's not my first choice to use Ted Kaczynski to back me up here but I recently watched the Unabomber series on Netflix. He says, "You have to sacrifice one thing to gain another."

When I (a person, a featherless biped) am addicted to drugs then my whole world (life) revolves around getting the drug, using the drug, having the drug on hand to be used, getting the money for the drug and so forth in addition to everything else a person must do. Drug addiction leaves time for little else. Hell, I missed funerals & stuff!

Those are probably the only people who have truly forgiven me. God's explained it to them.

Janus is right in saying, "Do not murder." I didn't, but I was neglecting a philosophy years earlier I swore to live by, it's from the movie/book, The Razor's Edge: There's a debt to pay for the privilege of being alive. The sin of omission has been a big one for me.

6 years before I began abusing crystal-meth I was a volunteer here in Riverside at the Van Horne Youth Center, like a Juvenile Detention Center. Some of those young men (boys) cried their hearts out to me. They knew I was there for them, that I wouldn't judge them, they recognized my Christian spirit and knew God/Love was at work in my life. I did love each and every one of them. My handler was a man still here in town, much older than I am, he must be 75 or 80 by now. Charlie Sinatra. Catholic Charities.

I'm back on track, I've got a few hundred soaps prepared for the mentally ill at the Wellness fair in less than a month, and a volunteer with that many as well. I make each soap as though it's the Gift of Rapture, I'm intentionally trying to lift these people's spirits out of their bodies.

Sorry for so long, Tim. Maybe it's all God's perfect will, maybe I'm the person I am today providing the most beautiful things anyone has ever laid on eyes, and I'm doing it for free precisely because of the fuck-up I once was?

Hi, been away for a few days working on Peer Employment Training. It's free, the jobs are great, not bad pay, and it's all about loving people. That's the best they've come up with.

I believe in Love (God), like Cher auto-tune signs, I believe in "Love after love." When it comes to the mind I have a somewhat different approach. I actually want to know what in the hell is going on.

In the midst of trying to change the life of a fairly young woman with a few mental health issues. My heart really goes out to you. Surround yourself with the best people.

The belief in naturalism, what I'm hearing you put forward (reading) is synonymous with "atheism; PHYSICALISM; causal closure; epiphenomenalism; intertheoretic reductionism (exactly what you're arguing against here!); functionalism; behaviorism; & determinism (Causal; motivational; & hedonistic). Some people also lump in "mechanical" determinism. I have a complete list if you want?

Your arguments aren't even rising to the fallacious level, they're more like simple contradictions.

People are featherless bipeds!

Who has more authority than a physicist? My Dad took my family sailing on a boat once owned by Robert Oppenheimer, "I have become the destroyer of worlds." Psychic transfer of data via a tactile bridge.

He's an authority for all the reasons I gave including him being a physicist, University of Notre Dame, and his degree in philosophy from Loyola Marymount where he won the President's Prize in philosophy, and where he studied philosophy with the Jesuits. One of whom was the Exorcist who performed the real exorcism on which the movie is based. The Holy Roman Catholic Church has a magnetic audio recording of that child speaking in ancient Aramaic, a dead language. I also mentioned his Philosophical Curriculum!

It's only fallacious if the person isn't an expert. For instance, no one is a bigger sermonizer for their belief in "atheism" than Richard Carrier and yet that louse cheated on his wife who put him through college, cheated on her numerous times with his education in "atheism." He met & screwed godless whores at "atheological" meetings. Appealing to the moral authority of Richard Carrier would be a fallacy in appealing to authority because the guy is the biggest cheater known to mankind. Can you believe he did that? It's one thing to stop loving your wife who put you through college, gave you your career as an "atheist," but to use that to bone loose women on your college educated tours, cheat on her with her own money? He turned his wife into a kind of cuck.

We're always self-medicating. Have you seen the movie Soapdish (1991)? There's a scene where Celeste Talbert (lead actress of the soap opera) is feeling depressed and her personal assistant, Rose Schwarz, takes her to the mall and then pretends she doesn't know her, "Are you Celeste Talbert, the soap opera star?" Kind of shouts it and all the women at the mall go crazy fawning all over her.

A lot of people online, the communities where I've been arguing, label me a "theist" and then attack their own label, their own strawman argument. I attack them for being so stupid, but that's a part of my mental illness. If I really had it altogether then I'd love those people instead of attacking them back.

When we attack and insult another person there is a chemical explosion in our bodies, an emotionally charged psychic experience that transitions from the spiritual in a form of a pharmacological impact crossing the blood-brain barrier intact. Smoking cigarettes the impact is 7 seconds from inhalation. When we insult someone, both parties are physically infected contemporaneously, no time delay.

This all describes every aspect of what it means to be human. God has evolved us this way, to have this kind of effect on others. People who you insult and can't be impacted are the worst sort of psycho- & sociopaths.

I'm the last person in the world who rationalizes any of my addictions. I'm a huge porn addict, and a huge food addict. No rationalizing, boldly stating the Truth, the absolute truth. "Confess you sins one to another so that you can be healed."

Sorry for the long sermon.

Thanks for the appreciation on donating blood. One time donating I was there with an autism shirt, some good friends of mine, some best friends, have an autistic son, Kenny. This man asked me about it, "Do you have an autistic child?" Then he pulled up his shirt sleeve revealing a gigantic shoulder/arm tattoo of the Autism Puzzle Piece, our symbol. His is the one with the four pieces kind of forming a square. You meet some of the best people donating blood.

Today was unreal, there was a lady nurse there from Transylvania, "Funny, I collect blood!" I told her about my Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux, "Everyone drinks my blood." She said their blood mobile was just at the base of Mt. Rubidoux yesterday and the donors told them to take the hike up to The Cross, she did. She said, "Is that your cross?" Yep. Then a woman, a fellow donator, asked me about the Cross, my claim of Christ (Messiah; Mashiach; Mahdi; & Melchizedek). I told her about my birthday, December 8th 1962, the Feast Day of Immaculate Conception, its connection to Hanukkah, the Miracle of the Maccabees and the festival of lights (there's a bible in Georgia flowing oil replicating that miracle), and she said, "My mother is born December 8th."

======

I suggest that anything has real being that is so constituted as to possess any sort of power either to affect anything else or to be affected, in however small a degree, by the most insignificant agent, though it be only once. I am proposing as a mark to distinguish real things that they are nothing but power. - Plato, The Sophist.

This leads us to formulate a dynamic ontology. One in which existence is the ability to act in the world. Anything that can act certainly must exist. What cannot act can never be known and would never therefore be thought of as an instance of existence. So, to exist is to be able to act. In the same way we can explain the idea of essence of what a things is by looking at the specification of it's possible acts. If something can reflect red light, it's red. If something can act like an apple then it's an apple. This gives us a very clear way of thinking about essence and existence in terms of acts and the specification of acts. It need not be any more complicated than that. dfpolis #42 Knowledge & Information. Part 6 of the knowledge series. How reality truly informs the mind on essence and existence.

In a really nice way I think I am challenging your position. I was a meth addict for 17 years, it had its toll on everyone in my family not least of which were my Dad, the Admiral and my Son, born on All Hallows Eve '89. But the foundation of my truth is from my experience with God.

I'm the Son, the Child, my Dad & Mom loved the most and took the most pride in. My Son, Jason, was the only grandchild either of them knew when they were in their bodies. My Son now knows my bout with crystal-meth, the bullet (a year sentence) I served, and knows my 11 year victory over that drug.

Just sent my Son two hundred dollars the first of the month, his request. He asked me for money and I'll be sending him one hundred dollars every month June forward, the 200 dollars covered April & May.

6 years ago I made it my life's goal to beat my Co-Occurring dual diagnosis. I know the solution to the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Yeah, I got a bit crazy doing drugs and some people, family & friends, were hurt indirectly, but that's a glimpse at a very small picture in the grand scheme of things.

No regrets.

Hi, two hundred doctors, 67 doctors and their teams, had the test evidence before and after these two miracles. Duane Miller was miraculously healed of paralysis and he was miraculously healed of all the scar tissue.

...The doctor suspected then, that the virus may have penetrated the myelin sheath that insulates the nerves in the vocal chords. To get a picture of this, imagine a copper wire. That's a nerve. Now imagine black, rubber insulation around the wire. That's the myelin sheath. If you gently squeeze the two with a pair of plyers, you may indent the insulation, but the wire inside it remains unharmed. That's what usually happens when a virus invades your body. It may "indent" the insulation around the nerves, but rarely invades the nerve itself.

"Not only are you okay," he said, "but I can't find any evidence that you ever had a voice problem!"

He sat down and looked at me, amazed. "Even if I could explain how you got your voice back by coincidence -- which I can't -- I could never explain what happened to the scar tissue." He sighed. "Scar tissue _never_ disappears. It just never happens!"

This physician, a nonbeliever so far as I know, was so impressed that he eventually obtained hundreds of copies of the audiotape of when the healing occurred and sent them out to his friends and colleagues with a letter that said, "Look, we hear about these types of cases all the time, but I'm telling you, I witnessed this one, I have the test evidence. This one is _real."_

My doctor writes textbooks for medical schools. He specializes in neurology as it relates to speech -- and he personally verified the miracle with the most prestigious of his colleagues.

Out of the Silence by Duane Miller.

As a Reverend I've been noticing a pattern over the last 38 years how naturalists twist science to conform to their canons and flippantly dismiss any science that contradicts their most preciously held beliefs. When we argue for a position the first thing we must do is know our opponents' arguments better than they do, and never leave a flank exposed.