More religion: faith vs. blind faith

[Ooner]

Here is my main problem with almost all modern religions: They require faith in something that has shown you absolutely no solid evidence of it's existence. Here's the arguments I expect and how I refute them:

Miracles: I have never witnessed a miracle, and more often the things that happen are completely expected. In the occasional case of the unexpected, it can always be chalked up to details in the circumstances (i.e. if the bullet had hit one inch to the left, the victim would have died, but it didn't because the shooter slipped. That's not anything spectacular, just coincidence.)

Creation: I know it falls under the miracle category. Anyways, there's not solid physical evidence here either. I can listen to theories all day long, but when push comes to shove, the idea of non-living materials gaining life-like qualities and eventually developing into bacteria, cells, organisms, and so on. It's far fetched, but it's SOMETHING.)

Now, the real point of the post: Why doesn't God show us something that is irrefutible (sp?) evidence of his existence? I know that if I witnessed something truly miraculous that I could not possibly deny was the work of God, I would have true faith for the rest of my life. As it is now, I do not. What's the difference between being faithful to something you truly know (I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and set tomorrow evening) and having blind faith in something you have never even seen or heard from? If there is no difference, why no miracle to gain faith from the disbelievers?

[Satan]

Originally posted by Ooner

Here is my main problem with almost all modern religions: They require faith in something that has shown you absolutely no solid evidence of it's existence.

That would be the definition of faith. See a dictionary.

Why doesn't God show us something that is irrefutible (sp?) evidence of his existence?

See the above.

[SPOOFE]

Why doesn't God show us something that is irrefutible (sp?) evidence of his existence?

Why don't quarks show us something that is irrefutable evidence of their existence?

In my mind, both questions are the same.

[Randy]

Originally posted by Ooner
Now, the real point of the post: Why doesn't God show us something that is irrefutible (sp?) evidence of his existence? I know that if I witnessed something truly miraculous that I could not possibly deny was the work of God, I would have true faith for the rest of my life.

This probably, is not going to be what you want, because I can only relay what the Bible says.

When Jesus was on the Earth, he did lots of miracles, in front of lots of people. The ones who wanted to believe did, and the ones who didn't want to, chalked those miracles up to something else. Even now, when people are healed in the name of Jesus, for example, folks tend to say it was a mindpower thing. So miracles don't bring about faith at all. God, at different times has used different people to perform miracles. Kathryn Kulhman, Smith Wigglesworth, and Oral Roberts to name a few. If we acknowledge them as being servants of God or not, is a choice we make. Kathryn Kuhlman had a radio show that was on in the 1950's and I think into the early 60's. I mean mainstream radio. She was widely known to those who cared, for miracles. Every town she went in, MANY would be healed. Smith Wigglesworth even reported raisings of the dead in his ministries. So there have been miracles in this day.

When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, God performed miracles daily. Big ones. The people still were full of unbelief and disobedience.

For some reason though, God reveals himself mostly in small ways. And he wants us to look for Him. He reveals Himself to the humble, to the oppressed, to the weak, "the Lord is near to those who have a broken heart, and saves such as have a contrite spirit". His way has never been to make a big show, to force Himself on us. Instead He draws us subtley, and quietly. He doesn't overwhelm us with outward stuff. Which is why many find Him when they are at a "low point", or in some kind of great need.

You have to be very careful about miracles anyway. The Bible seems to say in the last days many will be deceived by some who are practicing miracles. Not all miracles will be from God. Which is probably another reason He doesn't make it a common practice.

[muppetsoup]

I think I feel the same way for the most part as you do, Ooner. He supposedly loves you, and wants you to be in heaven with Him, and not in hell, but then He leaves you in the world with no evidence for him but some dubious hearsay. I've summed it up as "He loves you, but not enough to tell you in person." I think this is fair, seeing as how I am held much more rigid standards by my girlriend. <-- Joke alert (http://www.theregister.co.uk/media/352.gif) in case jmullaney drops in ;)

[sojourn26]

Originally posted by Randy
For some reason though, God reveals himself mostly in small ways. And he wants us to look for Him. He reveals Himself to the humble, to the oppressed, to the weak, "the Lord is near to those who have a broken heart, and saves such as have a contrite spirit". His way has never been to make a big show, to force Himself on us. Instead He draws us subtley, and quietly. He doesn't overwhelm us with outward stuff. Which is why many find Him when they are at a "low point", or in some kind of great need.

Does anybody else find this odd? God reveals himself to those who are broken hearted, oppressed and weak....seems fishy to me. So why only these people, why not the stong people who could do greater good for everyone? Why not reveal himself to leaders and so forth? Maybe there is another reason? Maybe it is not divine after all.....

More than likely the reason God "reveals" himself to these people is because they are weak willed and need something in there life to give aim and lead them. Something to cast fault on if someone dies or a tragedy occurs or such since they are to weak to stand up to it and deal w/ it realisticlly? When weak people are in pain or in need, they require someone else to provide for them since they cannot do so on their own. It gives the weak hope and faith that some grand entity is taking care of them and looking out for them, when in reality those people cannot look out for them self.

For example: say Billy is intoxicated and driving his car. He veers off the road and runs into the side of a building go 65mph. Billy is most definitely dead. But Johnny, Billy's younger brother believes it is a sign from God. Johnny to drinks and drives and he will come around to say that God took Billy to heaven to teach him that it is wrong and he should change his ways. So he changes his ways. Some of you will be thinking this proves your point, that this is a good example of how God does good. Now for your reality check: Billy was a drunken moron who was stupid enough to drive around w/ a blood alcohol level of 1.89. Billy, like most drunk drivers do, crashes and kills himself. God did not make this happen, Billy did. Johnny, being weak willed himself, will not be able to accept the fact that his brother was incompetent since doing so would be to close to the truth about his brother AND himself. So a divine entity comes into play to take the blame.

So what is the moral of this rant: the weak need something to blame and take care of them, the strong are grounded in reality and able to take care of themselves.

[Opus1]

When Jesus was on the Earth, he did lots of miracles, in front of lots of people. The ones who wanted to believe did, and the ones who didn't want to, chalked those miracles up to something else. Even now, when people are healed in the name of Jesus, for example, folks tend to say it was a mindpower thing. So miracles don't bring about faith at all. God, at different times has used different people to perform miracles. Kathryn Kulhman, Smith Wigglesworth, and Oral Roberts to name a few. If we acknowledge them as being servants of God or not, is a choice we make. Kathryn Kuhlman had a radio show that was on in the 1950's and I think into the early 60's. I mean mainstream radio. She was widely known to those who cared, for miracles. Every town she went in, MANY would be healed. Smith Wigglesworth even reported raisings of the dead in his ministries. So there have been miracles in this day.

When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, God performed miracles daily. Big ones. The people still were full of unbelief and disobedience.


And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you...

Why is it that you've only listed Christian miracles, Randy? Surely you are aware of the tons of Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic miracles that exist, right? I mean, when Mohammed was on Earth, he did all sorts of miracles. Those who wanted to believe, did. Those who didn't chalked it up to something else.

What about Jesus' contemporaries, like the Egyptian or Honi the Circle Drawer? Do you believe that they actually performed miracles, or do you "chalk it up to something else"?

Do you think that statues of Ganesha actually drink milk, and that images of the Virgin Mary appear in trees, or do you chalk it up to something else?

Whatever reason you give for rejecting non-Christian miracles, wouldn't you agree that that reason is just as valid for others to reject Christian miracles?

I mean, people raised from the dead? Where are the doctors? Where are the news reports? Why hasn't anyone claimed Randi's million dollar prize? Why does all of this sound no more impressive than Uri Geller's magic tricks or Peter Popoff's b.s.?

In case you're wondering, here's what I think of the Biblical miracles:

NT:
Jesus' followers believed that he was the Messiah. The gospels, written decades after his death by people who never knew him, are based upon that belief. The OT (and rabbinical tradition) contains some explicit descriptions of exactly what the Messiah would do. The evangelists, knowing in their heart of hearts that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, wrote stories of him doing just that. They didn't consider this lying. After all, if Isaiah says that the Messiah will make the blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk, and since I know that Jesus is the Messiah, he must have done just that, so there's nothing wrong with me writing a story to that effect. And, since the Messiah will be greater than all of the OT prophets, he must do everything that they did, but bigger! If Elisha fed 100 with 20 loaves of bread, then Jesus can feed 5000 with 5 loaves of bread!

OT:
People were upset with the priestly caste, who got large portions of their money for little work. Furthermore, the caste was entirely hereditary, so everyone knew that if your Dad wasn't a priest, you could never hope to be one either. The priests had a tradition of Aaron being set aside by God as a priest, replete with miracles and wonders. People started wondering "If God did a bunch of miracles in the past, why doesn't he do any more? If God spoke to Moses and Aaron personally, why doesn't he speak to anyone any more?" So the priests decided to make up some stories about how the people had disbelieved even when God did reveal himself and perform miracles. Then, they could tell the people "Look: God used to show his face every day, but people worshipped other gods and disobeyed anyway. So he decided to hide his face from us. That's why you don't see any miracles anymore." This was obviously a pretty good technique, as evidenced by the fact that apologists 3000 years later are still using it!

Other miracles:
I chalk the miracles of people like Kathryn Kulhman, Smith Wigglesworth, and Oral Roberts (Oral Roberts?! You've got to be kidding me!) down to exaggeration, distortion, and overactive imaginations. I've never seen a verified miracle by them or anyone else. I've heard tons of hearsay, urban legends, and second-hand testimonies, but never something like medical documentation of a man who had lost an arm in the war, but had it spontaneously grow back due to prayer.

[Opus1]

One more quick point:

Isn't it interesting how God only performs miracles in the presence of True Believers (tm)? From the Bible right up to modern apologists, we learn that one must have faith in order to witness a miracle: "For those with faith, no proof is necessary. For those without faith, none is ever enough" or some such nonsense.

This is very reminiscient of psychics who tell their clients that one must believe in order to have one's mind read, communicate with the dead, etc. Skeptics give off "negative brain waves" which prevent testing or ruin an experiment. In other words: Believe, and then you'll see the evidence. Of course, once you already believe, it's easy for the mind to misremember, exaggerate, or just plain invent evidence in order to substantiate those beliefs.

[Hazel]

Good posts, Opus; good analysis.

Ooner (and mabybe muppetsoup)-- Sounds like you don't believe (don't have faith), but wish you did. Why? Why would you want to believe? Surely you can get along just fine without doing so?

If you feel that you somehow "ought to" have a religion --to this too, I'd say "why? But if you want one, you could look into some of the other religions. You know, the ones that aren't christian. I hear that some of them don't even have gods, or at least, not personal gods.

Or just make up your own religion. My impression is that many who identify themselves as christions have done this. They pick and choose among the various items of dogma, accepting some, rejecting others. You can make up a version without miracles, if miracles are a sticking point for you.

[Hazel]

Good posts, Opus; good analysis.

Ooner (and mabybe muppetsoup)-- Sounds like you don't believe (don't have faith), but wish you did. Why? Why would you want to believe? Surely you can get along just fine without doing so?

If you feel that you somehow "ought to" have a religion -- to this too, I'd say "why? But if you want one, you could look into some of the other religions. You know, the ones that aren't christian. I hear that some of them don't even have gods, or at least, not personal gods.

Or just make up your own religion. My impression is that many who identify themselves as christions have done this. They pick and choose among the various items of dogma, accepting some, rejecting others. You can make up a version without miracles, if miracles are a sticking point for you.

[Eonwe]

It seems to me that "faith" is what you have when no other explination for a situation suits you. When there is no proof that seems reasonable, then the only place to turn is the unprovable. This does not mean that somewhere down the line an acceptable explination might not present itself (although beliefs are hard to change), but until then I don't see anything wrong with having faith in a story that explains the unexplainable.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Ooner
Here is my main problem with almost all modern religions: They require faith in something that has shown you absolutely no solid evidence of it's existence.
Sure, Christianity requires you to have faith in Jesus's promises. But you have faith in people all the time. You go to the doctor and you have faith that he knows what he is doing. You come to a 4-way stop sign and you have faith that the guy on the cross street is going to stop. Jesus only asks people to have faith that if they keep his teachings, they will still have food, shelter, and clothing, and, more importantly, come to know God and be loved by God. The fact that you have to trust that the promises are true first, because otherwise it would be foolhardy to obey him, is no different than the trust we put in other people all the time. (If you didn't trust all the other nuts on the road weren't going to drive with some semblance of sanity, you wouldn't drive would you?)

[Ooner]

[QUOTE]Ooner (and mabybe muppetsoup)-- Sounds like you don't believe (don't have faith), but wish you did. Why? Why would you want to believe? Surely you can get along just fine without doing so?
[QUOTE]

I'm not saying that I can't get along just fine without any religious beliefs. So far, I'm doing just fine. However, I do like the idea that there could be someone watching over and taking care of me, but my brain simply won't allow me to believe it. I'm far too logical.

Which is another point I'd like to make: Is faith an inborn trait or something that must be instilled in one at a very young age, or can it actually be picked up later? Because I can't even imagine switching from a very science-based athiest attitude to a modern religion that requires faith without some sort of miracle, near-death experience, or other extreme circumstance. I'm not sure if there's any other way to get faith.

[Ooner]

I should learn how to learn the quote feature too... The second quote above is actually not a quote :)

[Triskadecamus]

Looking for proof and seeking faith are antithetical activities. You can't prove a miracle, and you cannot disprove what is held in faith. Different worlds.

When I teach arithmetic I don't much ask for faith. A little bit, for the first few axioms, but even those are simply arguments deferred for the sake of building the system. Later, we can reexamine our axioms, and build theoretical arithmetic based on other axioms. It will be fun. But the rest of arithmetic I don’t ask for faith, and I don't accept miracles. I want proof, and I want to see your work.

Faith has no place in arithmetic.

The world of the spirit is not subject to examination by the tools of arithmetic. Chemistry, and physics are just extensions of arithmetic, in this regard. From the point of view of the material sciences, there are no spirits. Attempting to apply scientific and mathematical principles to spiritual matters is a very bad joke, from either perspective.

Of course love does exist, and evil, and goodness, and in fact I have a spirit, and I suspect you have one too. The limits of my artificial constructs such as arithmetic, and science are not the limits of existence. I won’t try to build a starship with hymns and prayers, and I won’t ask God to lift rocks, or let me measure his angels' feet. I will hum as I build my starship, and I will watch the angels dancing, when I see them.

I will leave the contemplation of the heads of pins to pinheads.

God loves you. He loves you in particular. It's a fuckin' miracle.

[sojourn26]

Originally posted by jmullaney
Sure, Christianity requires you to have faith in Jesus's promises. But you have faith in people all the time. You go to the doctor and you have faith that he knows what he is doing. You come to a 4-way stop sign and you have faith that the guy on the cross street is going to stop. Jesus only asks people to have faith that if they keep his teachings, they will still have food, shelter, and clothing, and, more importantly, come to know God and be loved by God. The fact that you have to trust that the promises are true first, because otherwise it would be foolhardy to obey him, is no different than the trust we put in other people all the time. (If you didn't trust all the other nuts on the road weren't going to drive with some semblance of sanity, you wouldn't drive would you?)

There is one point in all this that you are missing: these people you are referring to are here in person and are real. Jesus is 2000 years dead, and there is no telling if the promises he gave were actually by him or by someone else. The bible was written by man, not by Jesus, not by God and man has a habit of adding what he wants, what he thinks. History is always written by the victors, who is to say the bible was not written in the same, or near-same, context? It is very possible that you are following the promises of a man that never made such promises. It is just like the rumor game, I say "Do not sleep with your boss' daughter and you will be rich" and a few hundred people later say "Do not pee into Hoss' water and you'll see Rich", and you have faith that is what I said because the people who told you led you to believe that I had said that. You can always check the doctors credentials, you can always watch the man crossing the street, but you cannot confirm the promises made by a dead man 2000 years dead.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by sojourn26
There is one point in all this that you are missing: these people you are referring to are here in person and are real. Jesus is 2000 years dead, and there is no telling if the promises he gave were actually by him or by someone else.
Oh, sure. Newton has been dead for a few hundred years -- and some even say his laws really came from someone else too. But we can still verify that if you drop a ball from a tower it will fall at a certain accerating speed based upon the gravitational pull of the earth and the object.
You can always check the doctors credentials, you can always watch the man crossing the street, but you cannot confirm the promises made by a dead man 2000 years dead.
I'll concede you can't confirm all his promises, only most of them. You can always do what is right anyway out of love, and that will still bring you joy. To put it another way: do you believe in life before death?

[muppetsoup]

Originally posted by Hazel

Ooner (and mabybe muppetsoup)-- Sounds like you don't believe (don't have faith), but wish you did. Why? Why would you want to believe? Surely you can get along just fine without doing so?



I wouldn't say I feel like I need a religion, so much as I'd like to understand what justification believers have for their religion(s). I know lots of them were raised that way and have never thought twice about it, or at least haven't done any critical thinking on the subject. The ones that really bother me are smart people, like many posters on this board, who seem articulate, educated, intelligent, etc... and still seem to buy it. I see it as another superstition, requiring extraordinary evidence to believe in an extraordinary claim, yet they don't use the same skeptical eye when it comes to religion as they would if this whole thread were about my magic monkey's paw that grants me wishes.

[dal_timgar]

believe nothing, but you will have to judge the reasonableness of strange information for yourself.

research the bible code, torah code actually. there is a computer program for it, you can play with it yourself. unfortunately i don't know hebrew.

Dal Timgar

[sojourn26]

Originally posted by jmullaney
Oh, sure. Newton has been dead for a few hundred years -- and some even say his laws really came from someone else too. But we can still verify that if you drop a ball from a tower it will fall at a certain accerating speed based upon the gravitational pull of the earth and the object.

Newton, or whoever gave him the ideal, proved the presence of gravity and any child and scientist can prove that it exists. To this day there is no proof that Jesus' teachings would verify and prove that God exists.

Sorry, but even if I had no faith that gravity existed, it still does and every living person, and dead person from Newton's time forward, knew that gravity existed and could prove it EVERY SINGLE TIME. Only way to prove Jesus right is to die and find out for yourself.

[JDM]

Originally posted by Triskadecamus
Looking for proof and seeking faith are antithetical activities. You can't prove a miracle, and you cannot disprove what is held in faith. Different worlds.

When I teach arithmetic I don't much ask for faith. A little bit, for the first few axioms, but even those are simply arguments deferred for the sake of building the system. Later, we can reexamine our axioms, and build theoretical arithmetic based on other axioms. It will be fun. But the rest of arithmetic I don’t ask for faith, and I don't accept miracles. I want proof, and I want to see your work.

Faith has no place in arithmetic.

The world of the spirit is not subject to examination by the tools of arithmetic. Chemistry, and physics are just extensions of arithmetic, in this regard. From the point of view of the material sciences, there are no spirits. Attempting to apply scientific and mathematical principles to spiritual matters is a very bad joke, from either perspective.

Of course love does exist, and evil, and goodness, and in fact I have a spirit, and I suspect you have one too. The limits of my artificial constructs such as arithmetic, and science are not the limits of existence. I won’t try to build a starship with hymns and prayers, and I won’t ask God to lift rocks, or let me measure his angels' feet. I will hum as I build my starship, and I will watch the angels dancing, when I see them.

I will leave the contemplation of the heads of pins to pinheads.

God loves you. He loves you in particular. It's a fuckin' miracle.


OK- at this point I am literally halfway around the world from my beloved. I miss her awfully. When I have my arms around her I can find the still point in my universe, and feel whole. I am also a really caring fellow, who tries to do what good I can. I try not to do what I feel is evil. I try to help others, because I think that if we all tried to do that, it would be a better world.

None of this is inconsistent with my atheism, none of this posits a "spirit" which is supernatural, and if I ever use the term "miracle" it is strictly in the vernacular (actually I don't use the term, except as applied to Beethoven).

It is easy to look at something you find special and say it has to be supernatural. The thing is, you have to remember that it is special in your terms only. Let's say that a mouse has human type intellegence, for this argument. The mouse would find many things of its world special- the smells for instance. The mouse, however, would not even find coherence in Beethoven's opus 111, because the rhythm of the mouse's universe is so different from our rhythm. But I find the opus 111 sonata "miraculous."

Of course love does exist, and evil, and goodness


Of course it does, and so does the breadth of human striving and endeavor, and so does Beethoven who teaches us what it is to be human, and so does the glorious point in King Lear when Lear, naked in the tempest, driven in his old age into extremity beyond anything he had suffered in his royal life, kneels and prays, not for his own suffering, but for that of the the "poor naked wretches, wheresoe'er you are" that he had not been observant of in his power-

but the existence of all these things only makes us special within our own worldview: it doesn't say a thing about some supernatural guy in the sky. If he doesn't exist, I can still get my lessons from Shakespeare, or Darwin, who, discussing poverty, said: "if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin-," or Huxley, or any of the myriad "secular humanists" that show us that good and empathy is inherent in us with no need for any supernatural agency. JDM

[rjung]

Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly
Why doesn't God show us something that is irrefutible (sp?) evidence of his existence?

Why don't quarks show us something that is irrefutable evidence of their existence?
They do -- that's why we have nuclear physicists and particle accelerators. And unlike ministers or priests or religious leaders, the nuclear physicists have to produce verifiable and reproducible results.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by rjung
And unlike ministers or priests or religious leaders, the nuclear physicists have to produce verifiable and reproducible results.
Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't verifiable and reproducable.

Besides, I don't know who "we" is, but I personally don't have a particle accelerator capable of producing quarks. I've got to take the word of those who do have such a device.

[super_head]

Originally posted by Randy
Even now, when people are healed in the name of Jesus, for example, folks tend to say it was a mindpower thing.


Not to question your sources, of course, but do you have a cite for these miraculous healings in the name of Jesus? Other than anecdotal evidence? What about spontaneous remission of disease in non-Christians?

God, at different times has used different people to perform miracles. Kathryn Kulhman, Smith Wigglesworth, and Oral Roberts to name a few.

I'm not sure who the first two are, but Oral Roberts? Isn't he the one who cried on TV about how if he didn't raise so many millions of dollars that God was going to "call him home?" This makes me wonder - a) what kind of greedy god do you worship and b) if he was lying, why would god let him go around working miracles, as you claim?


She was widely known to those who cared, for miracles. Every town she went in, MANY would be healed. Smith Wigglesworth even reported raisings of the dead in his ministries. So there have been miracles in this day.

Citations? Independent verification of such events?

For some reason though, God reveals himself mostly in small ways.

Such as... flooding the planet... killing the first born... the plagues... Soddom and Gomorrah... turning people into pillars of salt... parting seas... yep, small fry tricks for sure.

His way has never been to make a big show, to force Himself on us. Instead He draws us subtley, and quietly. He doesn't overwhelm us with outward stuff. Which is why many find Him when they are at a "low point", or in some kind of great need.

See above - subtlety isn't his strongest attribute.

You have to be very careful about miracles anyway. The Bible seems to say in the last days many will be deceived by some who are practicing miracles. Not all miracles will be from God. Which is probably another reason He doesn't make it a common practice.

Sweeeet, I'm going to design a Miracle-o-Meter which will help Christians detect the fake miracles from the Honest-to-God, 100% Divine Miracles(tm)!

Or is there a way to divine the difference? And if there is, what is it - also, does it work for all Christians or just some? Are there varying interpretations of which miracles are the "good" variety? If so, why, and how do you know you've got the right method?

[Opus1]

Triskadecamus wrote:
You can't prove a miracle,

Not everyone agrees with you on this. I sure don't. Neither does Richard Packham (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_packham/heart.html). (Start reading at the paragraph that begins "Let me illustrate...")

Sojourn26 wrote:
Newton, or whoever gave him the ideal, proved the presence of gravity and any child and scientist can prove that it exists. To this day there is no proof that Jesus' teachings would verify and prove that God exists.


Sojourn26, you must have missed jmullaney's patented Christianity Test (tm)! It's very simple:

1) Give away all your worldly possessions
2) Temporarily sever contants with all friends/relatives
3) Live off the streets like a homeless man for at least six months (more if necessary)
4) You will discover that the Christian God exists

I shit you not. I may have some of the details a bit off, but jmullaney has argued that this test never fails, and that we're all just a bunch of spoil-sports for not subjecting ourselves to it. I'm sure someone will come along and link to the relevant thread.

So, Sojourn26, I bet you feel like a real :wally now for not realizing just how simple it is to test Jesus' claims. :rolleyes:

jmullaney graced us with:
Besides, I don't know who "we" is, but I personally don't have a particle accelerator capable of producing quarks. I've got to take the word of those who do have such a device.

Contrary to popular belief, repeatability is not the cornerstone of science; interpersonal subjective experience is. You don't need to accelerate particles yourself. You simply need to be able to look at the results of those who have done so and determine whether the experiment was conducted correctly, and whether the conclusions drawn from the evidence are valid. Certain miracles can be evaluated the same way: if someone claims that his arm miraculously regrew because of a faith healer, we can see:

1) Did this actually happen?
2) Is it right to give credit to the faith healer, and not some other source?

To the best of my knowledge, no miracle has yet occured which has passed both tests to the satisfaction of objective experts and scholars worldwide. Particle physicists of all nationalities, religions, races, ages, and backgrounds have verified the detection of quarks. But when it comes to miracles, Christian miracles seem to convince only Christians, Hindu miracles convince only Hindus, UFO abduction reports convince only UFO nuts, etc.

[rjung]

Originally posted by jmullaney
Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't verifiable and reproducable.
True, but it doesn't do much for my confidence when a dozen different religious leaders can read the same passage from the Bible and interpret it a dozen different ways (or more).

Besides, I don't know who "we" is, but I personally don't have a particle accelerator capable of producing quarks. I've got to take the word of those who do have such a device.
Nobody is stopping you from devoting yourself to studying nuclear physics, verifying the theories and conclusions along each step, and seeing if they really work or not. Just because something is not easy to prove independently doesn't mean it can't be proven independently.

(Every scientist dreams of the day when s/he discovers something that contradicts an established principle, because it means fame, fortune, and a Nobel Peace Prize. Every religious leader dreads the day when s/he discovers something that contradicts established doctrine, because it means doubt, ostrization, and expulsion from the Church. It's pretty obvious which group is more likely to reveal and correct the flaws in its teachings...)

[Randy]

Originally posted by Opus1
[quote]I chalk the miracles of people like Kathryn Kulhman, Smith Wigglesworth, and Oral Roberts (Oral Roberts?! You've got to be kidding me!) down to exaggeration, distortion, and overactive imaginations.

If you want to, I doubt you do, there are a couple good books you can read, about Oral Roberts' life. I guess you can argue that the authors of these books are liars. It's up to you. I have two books about the life of Kathryn Kulhman, not autobiographies (hmm, well maybe one of them is). Miracles happened, unless you count these authors as also liars, or distorters, or imaginitive. I'm asking this respectfully, how can you say with any authority that miracles didn't happen through these people? Is it because you have never witnessed one, so you KNOW they never happened?

God uses men to do His stuff. If God only used perfect men in His work, He wouldn't be able to do anything. King David, who by the way is a Historical figure as well as recorded in the Bible, had a man killed so he could have that man's wife. Yet God called him "A man after my own heart".

Moses killed a man and had to flee Egypt. But had there been a greater man of God prior to Jesus? Look at the mighty things God did through Moses.

Read about Samson. He was a mess most of his life, Yet God never removed the gifts He had given to Samson.

Paul was a Christian killer before his conversion, Peter denied he knew Christ. You can bet that there were men in those days who laughed at the thought of God using them.

All that doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't believe it anyway, that's for sure. But......

The same goes for today. There is NO perfect man. It says in the Book of Romans that the gifts and callings of God are without repentence, or irrevocable. There's no way that anyone is good enough on his own merit to be used by God. Not even the Pope. God uses a man who He has made clean by the Blood of Jesus. God looks at a man's heart, somewhere we can't see.

OK, I'll shut-up now.

[Opus1]

If you want to, I doubt you do, there are a couple good books you can read, about Oral Roberts' life. I guess you can argue that the authors of these books are liars. It's up to you. I have two books about the life of Kathryn Kulhman, not autobiographies (hmm, well maybe one of them is). Miracles happened, unless you count these authors as also liars, or distorters, or imaginitive. I'm asking this respectfully, how can you say with any authority that miracles didn't happen through these people? Is it because you have never witnessed one, so you KNOW they never happened?


There are a bunch of good books you can read about Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, Appolonius of Tyana, Honi the Circle Drawer, and a few hundred medieval Catholic Saints. Do you believe all of their miracles?

Do you believe that Johnny and Luther Tsoo can make themselves impervious to gunfire, and can craft magic bullets that make ten bullet holes when shot? Their followers do. I guess they're all just liars, exaggeraters, or whatever. Keep in mind, that the members of the Army of God risked their lives day in and day out based upon their belief in the divinity of the Tsoo twins. Hundreds of them have testified to having witnessed these events personally. Now that I think about it, maybe you're so gullible that you do believe in these miracles. Either way, not a worldview I'd care to share!

The reasons I highly doubt (not know) that miracles have not happened is because the evidence would be greater. Imagine somebody tells you that in 1965, aliens landed in Philadelphia. They emerged from their spaceships, walked among the people, were witnessed and photographed by many, and then left after a couple of hours. There are books available if you're interested.

Do you believe him? I sure hope not! Why not? Because had something this spectacular actually happened, we would have all heard about it a long time ago. It would be common knowledge, not a fringe belief. It would be in U.S. history textbooks right next to the moon landing.

But, I'm willing to be open-minded. Randy, please pick one miracle performed by any of these charla^P^P^P^P miracle workers that you'd be willing to hang your hat on as totally 100% legit. Post it with all relevant details and evidence that you can find. We'll then have a big group evaluation on the SDMB. Remember, it must satisfy two conditions:

1) Actually miraculous. In violation of physical/natural law. Not just something that we don't understand or that is unlikely.
2) Really good evidence, enough to convince rational people that natural law has been violated.

As for the rest of your post, think how impressed you'd be if a Muslim just posted a bunch of stories and anecdotes from the Qur'an. Not very. You conveniently ignored everybody's arguments, and are now prepared to slink away because you can't logically defend your position, and you know it.

P.S. I close with a post originally sent to errancy@infidels.org, a mailing list dedicated to discussing the issue of Biblical errancy:

Nick Tattersall wrote:
Suppose I told you that under normal conditions, my father once ran two hundred metres in only four seconds, using his special powers. Would you believe me? How about if I produced eyewitnesses who say they saw him do it?

I wouldn't consider you unreasonable for doubting the eyewitnesses until scientists and racing-officials saw my father repeatably do such a run under controlled conditions, and recorded on film. In fact, I think most reasonable people would take that position. The possibility of error, collusion, etc just cannot be ignored when we address something that defies the laws of nature, even if we have eyewitnesses. For a miracle or extraordinary event of this magnitude to be accepted, the evidence must be watertight.

Now suppose that, instead, I produced no eyewitnesses but told you that the eyewitnesses and my father are all dead. My father did the run many years ago, and all we have are the consistent signed and sworn testimonies of the eyewitnesses, who wrote their accounts at least thirty years after the event. Is that any good?

I don't think so. Many reasonable people would still stand unpersuaded by such testimony. It is entirely reasonable to consider collusion, error and embellishment over time to be more likely than the hypothesis that a law of nature was broken. If laws of nature really are occasionally broken, that seems to happen only rarely. Collusion, error and embellishment happen all the time. What we really need is a controlled scientific investigation into the phenomenon.

Now suppose that the documents I produced were not perfectly consistent. Suppose that actually they differed on key points. Some of them suggested my father ran two hundred metres in five seconds, while some say he did it in three seconds. Some say he did his run after his day's work, while others say he did it beforehand. Furthermore, it turns out to be the case that the documents are not signed or sworn anywhere. In fact, instead of them definitely being written by eyewitnesses, it seems remarkably difficult to determine who wrote them and when, as they are all anonymous. Experts who examine the documents have to rely exclusively on linguistic evidence to form a best-guess about where they came from. The experts differ on the matter of when they were written, and by whom, but there do exist at least some reasons to doubt that eyewitnesses or people close to my father actually wrote them after all, and not a great deal of reason to think eyewitnesses did it. Everyone is agreed that they were written at least a few decades after the event is supposed to have occurred.

What would you say to a person who expected you to consider such evidence to be compelling evidence for the supernatural? Wouldn't you consider it an insult to your intelligence?

How is it that the historical evidence for the central claims of Christianity should be any more convincing for reasonable and open-minded atheists and agnostics than the evidence for my father's miraculous run? Isn't it the case that there is not the slightest reason to think the evidence for either should be effective when presented to reasonable and open-minded nonbelievers?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Randy

Read about Samson. He was a mess most of his life, Yet God never removed the gifts He had given to Samson.


Yes He did, when Sampson got his hair cut. You probably don't want to go around looking at the Judges for role-models, though.

[sojourn26]

Originally posted by Opus1
So, Sojourn26, I bet you feel like a real :wally now for not realizing just how simple it is to test Jesus' claims. :rolleyes:

Well, let me ask you this: the test that you stated, have YOU ever tried it? Have you severed all connections w/ family and friends, had nothing to your name and lived on the streets for months? If so, did you find God? Because I can assure you, I have been in this situation, I had no friends, lost my family, had nothing to my name and was on the streets for months on end, and I did not find God. All I realized was that I need to build myself up from the pitiful situation I was in. So unless you have tried it yourself, maybe you should refrain from advising such a course of action til you proved it yourself.

Who feels like a :wally: now?

[muppetsoup]

Ummm... I think he was being sarcastic, dude. Try re-reading his post.

[super_head]

Originally posted by sojourn26
Originally posted by Opus1
So, Sojourn26, I bet you feel like a real :wally now for not realizing just how simple it is to test Jesus' claims. :rolleyes:

Well, let me ask you this: the test that you stated, have YOU ever tried it? Have you severed all connections w/ family and friends, had nothing to your name and lived on the streets for months? If so, did you find God? Because I can assure you, I have been in this situation, I had no friends, lost my family, had nothing to my name and was on the streets for months on end, and I did not find God. All I realized was that I need to build myself up from the pitiful situation I was in. So unless you have tried it yourself, maybe you should refrain from advising such a course of action til you proved it yourself.

Errr... I got the feeling that Opus was being very tongue-in-cheek with his "it's so simple to test Jesus" post to which you replied. I think you might need to hand over your Sarcasm-o-Meter for some fine tuning.

Either that, or mine needs work.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Opus1
3) Live off the streets like a homeless man for at least six months (more if necessary)
Acutally, I postulate 6 weeks. Compare the economic cost versus building a particle accelerator and you'll see it is a good deal.

Contrary to popular belief, repeatability is not the cornerstone of science; interpersonal subjective experience is. You don't need to accelerate particles yourself. You simply need to be able to look at the results of those who have done so and determine whether the experiment was conducted correctly, and whether the conclusions drawn from the evidence are valid.
Uh huh. I'm supposed to look at the swirling lines from a bubble chamber and just take the scientist's word for it that their evidence isn't fake. And I don't have a problem with that.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by rjung
It's pretty obvious which group is more likely to reveal and correct the flaws in its teachings...
Perhaps. OTOH, a scientist who covers up the results of an experiment or ignores unorthodox results doesn't do too badly for himself either, and doesn't risk losing funding or contracts or grad students, etc. A Christian who dicovers what is right risks hellfire if they don't teach revealed doctrine, all else be damned. So, it does cut both ways. Plenty of Christians have willingly gone to their deaths for telling you what I'm telling you.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by sojourn26
I have been in this situation, I had no friends, lost my family, had nothing to my name and was on the streets for months on end, and I did not find God.
Exellent. Someone who may have conducted my experitment any has conflicting results.

Would you be willing to answer a few exit questions?

1. Why?
2. What did you do for food?
3. What do you mean when you say you had nothing?

(no spoilers, people!)

[sojourn26]

Originally posted by jmullaney
[QUOTE]
Would you be willing to answer a few exit questions?

1. Why?
2. What did you do for food?
3. What do you mean when you say you had nothing?

(no spoilers, people!)

No, I am not willing. Live the life yourself and see if your questions are answered.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by sojourn26
No, I am not willing. Live the life yourself and see if your questions are answered.
Been there, done that. Do you really think I'd recommend to someone something I hadn't tried first myself? I can hardly give your answers based upon my experience, nor can I validate your possible claim to have run my experiment (which Opus1 didn't really present very well).

Let me state it again for the record:

1) Subject should be a basically good person.
2) Sell your possessions, and give away all your money.
3) Leave family and friends (In other words, couch surfing isn't valid)
4) Without undoing steps 2 or 3, continue for seven weeks.

(I had to put a time limit on there to satify the rest of the dopers, but I expect it is long enough.)

If you feel you did this, I'd greatly appreciate it if, in the interests of science, you were to share you results. You can always e-mail me at j_mullaney@hotmail.com and I would certaintly keep your answers confidential.

[Randy]

Originally posted by sojourn26
[QUOTE]Does anybody else find this odd? God reveals himself to those who are broken hearted, oppressed and weak....seems fishy to me. So why only these people, why not the stong people who could do greater good for everyone? Why not reveal himself to leaders and so forth? Maybe there is another reason? Maybe it is not divine after all.....

sojourn26
I tried to explain the reason up there, I obviously didn't do a good job of it. Most of us don't NEED God until something bad happens. Believe me, God is ready for us at anytime but it seems WE would rather talk about how ridiculous the idea of a god is, than go looking for Him. God resists the proud.

It's like when family members fight about small things, refuse to talk to each other, blame each other, and then when a tragedy happens, it brings them together and their hearts are softened toward each other.

Originally posted by Opus1
[QUOTE]Why is it that you've only listed Christian miracles, Randy? Surely you are aware of the tons of Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic miracles that exist, right? I mean, when Mohammed was on Earth, he did all sorts of miracles.
There are a bunch of good books you can read about Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, Appolonius of Tyana, Honi the Circle Drawer, and a few hundred medieval Catholic Saints. Do you believe all of their miracles?

Opus1

I've only listed Christian miracles because the OP asked why doesn't God do miracles, and I assumed he meant the real God. If you are saying that I have a responsibility or an obligation to include any other god than who I believe is God, then you and I will have to disagree.
Anyway, I did say "all miracles are not from God", so I did acknowledge other miracles happen. If I was George Bush's son, would I care about what Al Gore is doing?

I mean, people raised from the dead? Where are the doctors? Where are the news reports?

That's what Christians have been asking themselves for a long time.

One more quick point: Isn't it interesting how God only performs miracles in the presence of True Believers (tm)? From the Bible right up to modern apologists, we learn that one must have faith in order to witness a miracle: "For those with faith, no proof is necessary. For those without faith, none is ever enough" or some such nonsense.

God did lot's of miracles in front of the Pharoah of Egypt and the Egyptians. When one of the disciples cut off the ear of one of the arresting guards the night previous to His execution, Jesus healed his ear on the spot. I know, I know, you don't believe that.

You conveniently ignored everybody's arguments, and are now prepared to slink away because you can't logically defend your position, and you know it.

Slink away? Please give me time to answer before you accuse me of that. I really don't think I am trying to "defend my position" so much as just trying to say what I believe is the truth.

I said up there that God isn't a big Showman. So as far as documented proof, I myself, don't have any. Sometimes I wish I did. I've experienced it, and I've seen it, and my loved ones too. It's been recorded in lot's of books, but none that someone who needed notarized documentation would believe.

[Opus1]

Randy:

Okay, you are obviously quite gullible. You believe that natural laws are violated routinely, and that some of these aren't even from Yahweh, your God of choice. Let me repeat the questions that you've never answered:

1) How do you tell which miracles are from Yahweh and which aren't?
2) Why are miracles evidence of Yahweh's existence, but not of Zeus' or Allah's existence?
3) What is the most impressive miracle that you've seen/ heard of, such that you would be willing to debate it here on the SDMB?

Here's a passage from the Moabite Stone, discovered in 1868:

I am Mesha, son of Chemosh..., king of Moab, the Dibonite. My father was king over Moab thirty years and I became king after my father. And I made this sanctuary for Chemosh at Qrchh, [a sanctuary] of salvation; FOR HE SAVED ME FROM ALL THE KING AND LET ME SEE MY DESIRE UPON MY ADVERSARIES. Omri, king of Israel, he oppressed Moab many days, FOR CHEMOSH WAS ANGRY WITH HIS LAND. And his son succeeded him and he too said, "I will oppress Moab." In my days he spoke [thus], and I saw my desire upon him and upon his house, when Israel perished utterly forever. And Omri had taken possession of the land of Medeba and dwelt in it his days and half the days of his son, forty years; BUT CHEMOSH DWELT IN IT IN MY DAYS. And I built Baal-Meon and made it in the reservoir, and I built Qaryaten. And the men of Gad had long dwelt in the land of Ataroth, and the king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself. But I fought against the town and took it and I slew all the people of the town, A SPECTACLE FOR CHEMOSH and Moab. And I brought back from there the altar-hearth of David and I dragged it before Chemosh at Qeriyoth. And I settled there the men of Sharon and the men of Mchrt. AND CHEMOSH SAID TO ME, "GO, TAKE NEBO AGAINST ISRAEL." And I went by night and fought against it from the break of dawn till noon; and I took it and slew all: seven thousand men, boys, women, and [girls] and female slaves, FOR I HAD CONSECRATED IT TO ASHTAR-CHEMOSH. And I took from there the vessels of Yahweh AND DRAGGED THEM BEFORE CHEMOSH. And the king of Israel had built Jahaz and he dwelt in it while fighting against me. BUT CHEMOSH DROVE HIM OUT BEFORE ME. And I took from Moab two hundred men, all of them leaders, and led them up against Jahaz and took it to annex it to Dibon. I built Qrchh, the walls of the parks and the walls of the mound; and I built its gates and I built its towers; and I built the king's house; and I made both the reservoirs for water inside the town. And there was no cistern inside the town of Qrchh, so I said to all the people, "Make yourselves each one a cistern in his house." And I had ditches dug for Qrchh by prisoners of Israel. I built Aroer and I made the road by the Arnon. I built Beth-bamoth, for it was destroyed; I built Bezer, for it was in ruins, with fifty men of Dibon, for all Dibon is under my authority. And I reigned [over] hundreds of towns which I had annexed to the country. And I built... Medeba and Beth-Diblathen and Beth-Baal-Meon, and I led up there the breeders of the sheep of the land. And as for Hauronen, there dwelt in it.... CHEMOSH SAID TO ME, "GO DOWN, FIGHT AGAINST HAURONEN." And I went down... [and there dwelt] in it Chemosh in my days... (D. Winton Thomas, Documents From Old Testament Times, Harper & Row, pp. 196-197, emphasis added).

I'm sure you don't believe that Ashtar-Chemosh was telling Mesha to conquer the Israelites. But you do believe that Yahweh was telling Cyrus to conquer the Babylonians? Why?

Here are links to Islamic miracles:
http://www.it-is-truth.org
http://al-imam.net/miraclesislam.htm
http://www.idleb.com/islamic-mircles.htm.htm

(My two other Islamic miracle links appear to be down)

Do you believe those? Are they impressive at all? I hope not. I'm equally unimpressed with the Christian miracles you've posited.

This all goes back to my main point, which is that a miracle requires [i]extraordinary evidence, not just some ramblings in a 2500 year old book, or some third-hand testimony. So give me some extraordinary evidence, or admit that it is rational for people to reject the existence of miracles.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Opus1
But you do believe that Yahweh was telling Cyrus to conquer the Babylonians? Why?
Geez. That was 3000 years ago. No one has any idea if any of that junk in the Old Testement is true. Get over it already.

Here are links to Islamic miracles:
Um. When your language's alphabet is composed of up and down squiggles, it isn't a miracle when they appear in nature. Heck, half the time the wrinkles in my poop spell "Allah" -- no offense.

This is akin to another religion that venerates a figure made up of a distinct pattern of oval -- the same pattern which forms quite randomly where ever you have a golden rectangle undergoing certain external pressures -- such as a window pane. Equally as hokey.

So give me some extraordinary evidence, or admit that it is rational for people to reject the existence of miracles.
If you want the evidence, go and get it yourself. I've told you how. Don't demand others do your research for you.

[Opus1]

jmullaney:Geez. That was 3000 years ago. No one has any idea if any of that junk in the Old Testement is true. Get over it already.


I don't know why I bother to argue with you, but let's try this anyway. There are tons of people who believe that the Bible (including the Old Testament) is the divine inspired word of God, and hence everything in it is completely accurate. So no, I won't "get over it."

Um. When your language's alphabet is composed of up and down squiggles, it isn't a miracle when they appear in nature. Heck, half the time the wrinkles in my poop spell "Allah" -- no offense.


Yes, brilliant argumentative technique here. I'm so impressed.

If you want the evidence, go and get it yourself. I've told you how. Don't demand others do your research for you.

Okay, let me explain how science works. I know I'm wasting my time on you, but this should be beneficial to others reading this thread.

In an ideal world, every new idea or claim should be thoroughly tested to see if it's accurate. But we know that there are practical limitations to this. If somebody has a new idea about how the universe formed, but testing it will cost 10 billion dollars, it's going to be a long road to hoe before he can actually get it tested. This is why we proceed by bite-sized pieces. In this case:

1) The scientist would write a proposal, detailing his theory: how it explains current observations better than existing theories, what other observations could verify it, how it can be tested, etc.
2) He tries to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, where a team of referees decides whether it is sufficiently well-researched to be published.
3) If it is, it's published. Then, thousands of scientists from around the world look over the theory and criticize it.
4) After a long time, if it gets enough support in the scientific community, it may actually get tested.
5) Usually, it is tested bit-by-bit. Nobody shells out the whole 10 billion right away. Instead, they ask: "Can we test part of this theory for less money?" If it passes this test, then they proceed to do larger, more extensive, and more expensive tests, right up to the final one which is necessary to "prove" said theory.

Now, if you're not a scientist, you'll have a big step 0 to get through, namely getting anyone to pay attention to your theory in the first place. Fortunately, there are tons of masochists on sci.physics and other newsgroups who would be more than happy to critique any theory anyone has to offer. If enough of them find it acceptable, they can help pass it on to the real scientific community.

This is how your stupid little "Live like a bum for six weeks and you'll become a Christian" test fails miserably. You fail to provide an explanation of how/why it works. You fail to give any real evidence that it does work, beyond anecdotal evidence. (E.g., A study of X people showed that Y% had increased religious faith after experiencing a period of homelessness.) And you fail to provide any smaller steps along the way. Instead, you just say: "Do it. Trust me. It'll work." Sorry, that's not how it works. I think everyone here (except for you, of course) will agree that it is incredibly stupid to do anything drastic based upon the recommendation of one person on the Internet. I will be happy to investigate any claims you have of the miraculous, up to a certain amount of commitment on my part.

I've asked Randy to post his best miracle. Once he does, I'll be willing to do some research on it. I may invest a few hours of my time. If the miracle looks pretty legit, then I'll be willing to invest more time, and perhaps even some money investigating it. The stronger the evidence gets, the more I'll invest, up to the point of dedicating my entire life to Christianity should the evidence be strong enough. But I have to proceed stepwise.

If you don't see why this is, then I suggest that you give me all your money and material possessions. I guarantee that this will prove to you that my worldview is correct.

[jab1]

Originally posted by jmullaney
Sure, Christianity requires you to have faith in Jesus's promises. But you have faith in people all the time. You go to the doctor and you have faith that he knows what he is doing. You come to a 4-way stop sign and you have faith that the guy on the cross street is going to stop.Besides the fact that Jesus is dead and those other people are alive (as sojourn26 pointed out), there's yet another niggling little detail:

If those other people don't live up to the trust you have put in them (and the meaning of the word faith is actually "trust" in this context), they can be punished for it. If the doctor doesn't know what he's doing, he can be sued for malpractice. If a driver runs a stop sign because of defective brakes or not paying attention, he can be ticketed at the least or convicted of vehicular manslaughter at the worst.

But if Jesus doesn't live up to His promises, whatcha gonna do? Who ya gonna call? There is no court of law that can punish the Son of God.

Jesus only asks people to have faith that if they keep his teachings, they will still have food, shelter, and clothing, and, more importantly, come to know God and be loved by God.Is Jesus God or is God Jesus? I keep forgetting. And how about relating to the new folks here your claim that, more than once, food was miraculously provided for you?

(If you didn't trust all the other nuts on the road weren't going to drive with some semblance of sanity, you wouldn't drive would you?) Here's another thing: Most people AREN'T irresponsible nuts. You CAN trust that they'll drive properly because most of them want to get where they're going just as you do! There are a few nuts, sure, but that's no reason to believe they all are.

Frankly, it's self-centered and arrogant to think that no one knows how to drive safely but you.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Opus1
I won't "get over it."
OK, understood.

Heck, half the time the wrinkles in my poop spell "Allah" -- no offense.
Yes, brilliant argumentative technique here. I'm so impressed.
Just don't tell anyone. My bathroom is cramped enough without a dozen women in kerchiefs in there saying the Muslim rosary all day.

Okay, let me explain how science works.
...

1) The scientist would write a proposal, detailing his theory: how it explains current observations better than existing theories, what other observations could verify it, how it can be tested, etc.
2) He tries to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, where a team of referees decides whether it is sufficiently well-researched to be published.
3) If it is, it's published. Then, thousands of scientists from around the world look over the theory and criticize it.
4) After a long time, if it gets enough support in the scientific community, it may actually get tested.
1) Jesus did that already
2) The Book of John was included in the canon by the Holy Roman Catholic Church 1700 years ago, and it was widely pulicated for a few hundred years before that. The theory I am disseminating here, essentially that disordered appetites hamper mans knowledge of God, has also been taught as a part of their basic catechisis (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html):
In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.

In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.
3) Plenty of people have looked at Christianity for nearly two thousand years and critized it.
4) Various people have tested this theory, and found it to be true. Too many to name, in fact. If no one had ever found what Christ taught to be true, by now there would be little reason to go on debating it.
5) God did reveal his divine plan to man gradually, which is what the Old Testement attests to.

Now, if you're not a scientist, you'll have a big step 0 to get through, namely getting anyone to pay attention to your theory in the first place.
This has been a historical problem the Catholic Church has had for a long time, which can often be attributed to the leadership's own lack of diligence. (They otherwise call the failure of people who call themselves Catholics to actually pay attention to what the Church teaches a "mystery.")

If enough of them find it acceptable, they can help pass it on to the real scientific community.
I might give that a shot.

You fail to provide an explanation of how/why it works.
Newton never explained why gravity worked, nor has anyone since. I don't see why this is any different.
You fail to give any real evidence that it does work, beyond anecdotal evidence. A study of X people showed that Y% had increased religious faith after experiencing a period of homelessness.
The parameters of my test have nothing to do with merely being poor or even exposed to the elements. However, everyone I have met and the writings of those long dead who have kept Jesus's teachings for some period of time have gotten the same results. It is difficult to do a study on such a small segment of the population, especially when its members are a loosely knit collection of wanderers.

I think everyone... will agree that it is incredibly stupid to do anything drastic based upon the recommendation of one person on the Internet.
Like I said, you don't have to take my word for it. Mainstream Christianity has taught this for two thousand years.

I suggest that you give me all your money and material possessions.
I prefer to give alms to the poor, thanks.

[jab1]

Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly
Why doesn't God show us something that is irrefutible (sp?) evidence of his existence?

Why don't quarks show us something that is irrefutable evidence of their existence?

In my mind, both questions are the same. You mean quarks have decided not to show themselves?

[jab1]

Originally posted by dal_timgar
research the bible code, torah code actually. there is a computer program for it, you can play with it yourself. unfortunately i don't know hebrew.The so-called "Bible Code" was applied to Moby Dick (http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html) and the assassinations of JFK, Indira Ghandi, MLK Jr., Leon Trotsky, Lincoln, and Yitzhak Rabin were found "hidden" in the text. I guess God wrote Dick and not Herman Melville. :rolleyes: Or maybe Melville was psychic? Yeah, that's it!!!! :p

[Monty]

Strictly speaking, Buddhism doesn't require a belief in miracles; merely believing (practicing, actually) the Eightfold Path.

[Opus1]

I'm reminded of the adage never to wrestle with a pig: you'll just get dirty and the pig will like it. But somehow I can't avoid this living trainwreck which is jmullaney.

Every religion in existence tells you that if you just try it, you'll see that they're right. Mormons have the "way of Moroni." Hindus tell you to try various types of yoga. And jmullaney tells you to give away all your possessions.

So, here are my questions for him:
1) How many people do you know of who have tried your test?
2) How many of them did not profess belief in Jesus as the son of God before, but ended up doing so because of said test?
3) Do you know of anyone, either personally or anecdotally, who tried this test and did not end up professing Jesus to be the son of God?
4) Have you conducted any systematic study, controlling for all relevant variables?
5) Have you compared your test to other tests? For example, how many individuals do you know who were non-Hindus, practiced yoga for many years, and became Hindus because the practice opened their minds to God?

I'd also like to note how good jmullaney is at avoided/changing key arguments/words. He says that I don't have to take his word, because mainstream Christianity has been teaching the same thing for 2000 years. I'd like to see his evidence that mainstream Christians have advocated giving away all of one's worldly possessions as the way to discovering that their religion is true.

IIRC, jmullaney has argued that those who keep Christ's teachings are Christians, even if they don't know so. Based upon this absurd definition, his test is guaranteed to work, because Jesus advocated giving away all one had. Therefore, anyone who does this is de facto a Christian.

Masochistically awaiting another quasi-lucid reply...

[Randy]

Originally posted by Opus1
Randy:

Okay, you are obviously quite gullible. You believe that natural laws are violated routinely, and that some of these aren't even from Yahweh, your God of choice.

Lets get down to the heart of the matter. You're saying that to believe in God, Jesus Christ, the gospel of salvation is gullible. Right? Because, I don't think I'm gullible at all to believe that Almighty God, Creator of the Heaven and Earth and everything on it could violate the "natural laws" that He set in place. Routinely though? No, that's what this thread is about aint it?
I have some good company in my gullibility, like the "Father of our country" George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Webster who claimed an early "love of the Scriptures", Isaac Newton who said this, "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history", Galileo, "I believe that the intention of the Holy Writ was to persuade men of the truths necessary to salvation", and MOST of our founding fathers. As a matter of fact, Patrick Henry said this, "It cannot be emphasized too often or too strongly that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians; not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.....It is for this reason that people of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here. That was in response to your statement.... "Yaweh, your God of choice".


Let me repeat the questions that you've never answered:

1) How do you tell which miracles are from Yahweh and which aren't?


There are a few ways. WHO is doing the miracles? Who is he giving credit to? Is the person doing them living a Biblically Christian life? Does what he says, match up with what the Bible says? That's most important. Then there is a kind of "gift" of discernment that God will give believers if they ask. Kind of a "caution flag" thing. The Bible says that in the last days, a "spirit of deception" will be put on those who chose to disbelieve, so they will believe that the works of the anti-christ(s) are from God.


2) Why are miracles evidence of Yahweh's existence, but not of Zeus' or Allah's existence?

Once again, I believe there are miracles which don't come from God. One of the reasons that God doesn't "routinely" do miracles all over (I believe) is because,(see above) miracles are NOT proof that the person doing them is a representitive of the True God. Other "Gods" exist, but there's only one True God.


3) What is the most impressive miracle that you've seen/ heard of, such that you would be willing to debate it here on the SDMB?

Also see above. I don't have documentation.



I'm sure you don't believe that Ashtar-Chemosh was telling Mesha to conquer the Israelites. But you do believe that Yahweh was telling Cyrus to conquer the Babylonians? Why?

The way that God usually spoke to King David, or any other king of Israel or Judah, was through a prophet. So, I don't doubt at all that a "Chemoshian prophet", spoke to Mesha and told him that. Isn't it cool though that the Moabite stone they found confirms the history as it is written in the Old Testament?.


This all goes back to my main point, which is that a miracle requires extraordinary evidence, not just some ramblings in a 2500 year old book, or some third-hand testimony. So give me some extraordinary evidence, or admit that it is rational for people to reject the existence of miracles.

We seem to be beating a dead horse here. The reason that Ooner posted this Thread is because he had never seen a miracle. I replied that God is not a Showman, He doesn't reveal Himself this way much. I said that miracles happen, they are recorded in books but there's not alot of "documentation" on them. You keep demanding hard evidence.

Let me ask you this though Opus1, what if God did show you a miracle? What if, for example, you were out one night and you asked God to give you some proof that He was real. Lets say at that moment the sky lit up for a second, or a brilliant star shot past you, or you heard a voice, "I am God, here I am". Let's say for example a good friend of yours got sick, cancer, and he went and got prayer at a believing church and when he went back for treatment, the doctors said there was no sign of cancer. What would happen then? Would you believe? Would you serve God, and believe on Him through thick and thin, for the rest of your life, or in a couple months, when the first miracle wore off, or at the first sign of trouble, would you need another one to make you believe again? How many miracles would God have to do, to MAKE EVERYONE serve Him, love Him and believe in Him?

[Protesilaus]

Originally posted by Randy
You're saying that to believe in God, Jesus Christ, the gospel of salvation is gullible. Right?
I have some good company in my gullibility, like ... MOST of our founding fathers.

Actually, that's incorrect. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Ethan Allen were all deists, not Christians. John Adams was a Unitarian. All emphasis in below quotes is mine.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion; . . ." - Article XI, Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary (Treaty of Tripoli), signed by President Washington

"[Ashbel Green, Presbyterian minister] often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist." - Arthur B. Bradford, Presbyterian minister

"Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington's reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson's serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world." - Paul F. Boller, Jr., Washington and Religion

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments

"Some books against Deism fell into my hands. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short I soon became a perfect Deist." - Benjamin Franklin, his autobiography

"No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and the least and last of all should I undertake to criticize works on the Apocalypse (Revelations). It was between fifty and sixty years since I read it and then I considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams. I was, therefore, well pleased to see, in your first proof sheet, that it was said to be not the production of St. John, but of Cerinthus a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author's name does not lessen the extravagancies of the composition; come they from whomsoever they may, I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narration of events, past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of national ideas. You will judge, therefore, from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation or that of any man in 'the Heavens above or on the earth beneath' can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation!" - Thomas Jefferson: In His Own Words, page 360

"RELIGION: Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country. Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature in the case he relates. For example in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine therefore candidly what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis as the earth does, should have stopped, should not only by that sudden stoppage have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time have resumed its revolution, and that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth's motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the new testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions 1. of those who say he was begotten by god, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven: and 2. of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law which punished the first commission of that offense by whipping, and the second by exile or death." - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Peter Carr

"Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a Deist in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from Latin Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed.

"It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation.

"But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God. Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.

"The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation, and his own existence?" - Thomas Paine

"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing." - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, page 187

"It is only in the Creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a Word of God can unite. The Creation speaks a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God." - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"Those who invalidate reason, ought seriously to consider, whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle, that they are laboring to dethrone, but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument." - Ethan Allen, Reason: The Only Oracle of Man

"Such people as can be prevailed upon to believe, that their reason is depraved, may easily be led by the nose, and duped into superstition at the pleasure of those, in whom they confide, and there remain from generation to generation; for when they throw away the law of reason, the only one which God gave them to direct them in their speculations and duty, they are exposed to ignorant or insidious teachers, and also to their own irregular passions, and to the folly and enthusiasm of those about them, which nothing but reason can prevent or restrain; nor is it a rational supposition that the commonality of mankind would ever have mistrusted, that their reason was depraved, had they not been told so, and it is whispered about, that the first insinuation of it was from the Priests." - Ethan Allen, Reason: The Only Oracle of Man

[Opus1]

You're saying that to believe in God, Jesus Christ, the gospel of salvation is gullible. Right? Because, I don't think I'm gullible at all to believe that Almighty God, Creator of the Heaven and Earth and everything on it could violate the "natural laws" that He set in place. Routinely though? No, that's what this thread is about aint it?


I'm saying that you're gullible for believing in violations of natural law upon exceedingly skimpy evidence.

I have some good company in my gullibility,

You next continue with a large argument from authority, which you can't even get right, listing several deists. Yawn.

WHO is doing the miracles? Who is he giving credit to? Is the person doing them living a Biblically Christian life? Does what he says, match up with what the Bible says?

This is totally circular reasoning. The Bible is correct, therefore only Christian miracles come from Yahweh. A Muslim could say the same thing:

WHO is doing the miracles? Who is he giving credit to? Is the person doing them living a Qur'anically Muslim life? Does what he says, match up with what the Qur'an says?

Once again, I believe there are miracles which don't come from God. One of the reasons that God doesn't "routinely" do miracles all over (I believe) is because,(see above) miracles are NOT proof that the person doing them is a representitive of the True God. Other "Gods" exist, but there's only one True God.


I have no clue what you mean by this. When you say that other "gods" exist, do you mean that they exist like Madonna or George W. Bush exist: real actual beings? Or do they exist in some sort of vague metaphysical sense that you'll need to explain to me? Do you want me to show you some Bible verses denying the existence of any God but Yahweh?

Regardless of what you mean by other gods existing, this only confirms in my mind your gullibility. You believe that natural law is violated, and that such violations do not always come from Yahweh. This is just absurd.

I don't have documentation [of any miracles]

Damn you're gullible! Now you're telling me you don't have any documentation whatsoever of any miracle, and yet you believe in them! If somebody were to tell you that many people were routinely abducted by aliens, but provided no evidence, would you believe him?

The way that God usually spoke to King David, or any other king of Israel or Judah, was through a prophet. So, I don't doubt at all that a "Chemoshian prophet", spoke to Mesha and told him that. Isn't it cool though that the Moabite stone they found confirms the history as it is written in the Old Testament?.

How did a Chemoshian prophet speak to Mesha if there was no Ashtar-Chemosh to speak? And, if you actually knew something about the Bible and the Moabite stone, you'd realize that it doesn't confirm all the Old Testament history. It contradicts it when it says that the God Ashtar-Chemosh was responsible for the Moabite conquest as a reward to the Moabites. The Bible says that Yahweh was responsible for the defeat, in order to punish the Israelites. I suggest you read the article to see just how similar the Bible and the Moabite stone are, and why it is irrational to accept one as the word of God, and dismiss the other as the superstitious ravings of a primitive people:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/3/3claim95.html

Let me ask you this though Opus1, what if God did show you a miracle?

I would believe that there exists some being more powerful than us, but a miracle would not convince me that this same creature also created the universe, is the father of Jesus, answers prayers, etc.


What if, for example, you were out one night and you asked God to give you some proof that He was real. Lets say at that moment the sky lit up for a second,

This is not a miracle.


or a brilliant star shot past you,

Not a miracle.


or you heard a voice, "I am God, here I am".

Depends on the nature of the voice, whether I can conduct further communication with it, etc. But I don't think that hearing a voice is proof of God's existence, considering that other people could be near by yanking my chain, or that there could be a tape player, etc.


Let's say for example a good friend of yours got sick, cancer, and he went and got prayer at a believing church and when he went back for treatment, the doctors said there was no sign of cancer. What would happen then? Would you believe?


About 1/10000 cancers go into spontaneous remission. A far greater number are cured through modern science. I thus conclude that even if God does exist, he is less powerful than doctors, and hardly worth worshipping. But considering that this is not impossible, I would not take it as evidence of a deity, no.


Would you serve God, and believe on Him through thick and thin, for the rest of your life, or in a couple months, when the first miracle wore off, or at the first sign of trouble, would you need another one to make you believe again? How many miracles would God have to do, to MAKE EVERYONE serve Him, love Him and believe in Him?


If God were to show me one (1) truly miraculous miracle, I would believe. What would qualify? Lame stuff like curing diseases that often cure themselves doesn't count. Nor do lucky coincidences. Shooting stars are really poor evidence. Things which we know to be physically impossible would have to occur. God could, for example, alter the speed of light so that it is different all over the world, in a way that is measurable and confirmable by thousands of different scientists. He could, for one day, make ice heavier than water, so that everyone on the planet could see the miracle by putting ice cubes in a glass of water and watching them sink. He could be really miraculous by exempting our oceans and lakes from this miracle, so that the environment would not be harmed. The case of the man without a heart which I posted is a good example of a miracle which I would take as good evidence of something powerful.

But I do not need a miracle to believe in God. A miracle would prove to me the existence of some greater power. But the Judeo-Christian God is typically defined as being the all powerful, all knowing, all good creator of the universe. A miracle would give some evidence of the first part, but not of the last three.

The bottom line is that I would not require a miracle to believe, nor would a miracle prove that the Judeo-Christian God exists. But I find people who believe in miracles to be extremely gullible, especially when they can provide no evidence of their claims. I generally toss them into the same category as those who believe in psychic energy, alien abductions, and a host of other unsubstantiated, paranormal nonsense.

[Polycarp]

Interesting round of arguments. First, let me dispose of one slight miscue:

Jab commented:
Is Jesus God or is God Jesus?
Which is by no means the first time he's played the Jesus vs. God argument in religious discussions. I have a lot of respect for Jab's capabilities in thoughtfully arguing the atheist viewpoint, even on the Pizza Parlor (though not under his real name) ;) .

But, Jab, I need to take you to task on this one. You would be highly offended at somebody "refuting" one of your points by wilfully confusing "mammal" and "animal" or "Paleocene" and "Paleozoic," or by suggesting that since floods cause small and localized rapid depositions, therefore all deposition anywhere was caused by Noah's Flood (yeah, I've been looking at that thread, and running screaming from the room).

So here you're insisting on not playing by the definitions formulated by the expert theorists. It is not necessary to buy into the dogma of the Trinity to accept it as the basis on which orthodox Christians make their arguments. And what it says is that there is one unary God -- a single entity in the head-honcho position vis-a-vis the universe -- who in some manner makes Himself known to mankind in three Persons -- under three heads, as it were -- the Father God of the Old Testament and to whom Jesus refers, the Son who is incarnate in human form (avatar) as Jesus of Nazareth, and the Holy Spirit, a rather tougher thing to analogize but simply God working within the individual's mind/"heart" (metaphorically)/spirit. So whatever Jesus does is what God does, and vice versa, allowing for the distinction of persons. (E.g., Jesus can pray to the Father as demonstrative of what men should do vis-a-vis God, since he was a man too, but was himself God in human form doing so.)

It's a counterintuitive concept, to be sure, but it's what Christians propose as accurate description of the inner composition of God. So while you can argue against it, from either logical or metaphysical grounds, it is "against the rules" to suggest that Christians believe, e.g., in God being placated by torturing somebody else -- we believe that He gave Himself over to death by torture.

Would you consider that a fair cavil on your posts, sir? I'm saying, disagree overtly with the idea, or allow it for the sake of argument within orthodox doctrine, but don't argue against an orthodox position without refuting the idea, or at least explicitly rejecting it.



Now, to business. In any research endeavor, one has a variety of sources for one's acceptance of data as accurate: (1) personal experience or experimentation; (2) authority; (3) critical study, and (4) reason, come to mind. One knows, for example, the route between work or school and home through having travelled it. One need not take this on authority or look it up on Expedia; it's a part of personal experience. The atom-smasher exchange above is a case of taking things on authority. Cloud-chamber tracks require at least a minimal amount of schooling in atomic physics to interpret accurately, otherwise they are just lines. But most people would accept the analysis of persons who have made a career on studying atomic physics. Finally, someone trained in historical analysis who reviews a work and determines that the data presented therein are effectively stated within the best skills of current historical research is adequate grounds for accepting his premises and those of the book he critically reviews as the best we can do at present towards establishing what actually happened in that particular portion of history under study. Similar to the "authority" position, but with the added fillip of skeptical analysis on an uncertain subject matter.

Given that, let me suggest the following scenario: A person trained in medical reportage and skeptical analysis of claims investigates a situation where there have been reports, some conflicting, of miraculous cures and the preaching of God's power at hand. On investigation, the person finds there to be validity behind some of the claims, and becomes a believer, writing up the findings in a couple of books.

Dollars to donuts, whoever's followed that last paragraph is thinking, "he's going to suggest the accuracy of the Gospel According to Luke." And while there's truth to that, I phrased it carefully to also speak about the work of Emily Gardiner Neal, who was a skeptical reporter with a medical beat a couple of decades ago who investigated the "faith healing" claims and wrote a couple of books about her findings, buying into the reality of some of them and becoming an active Christian believer.

Finally, the idea that there is a God who is active in the universe he created but who does most of his work through the agency of the people he calls, which is very solid Christian doctrine, suggests that the very definition of "miracle" used by most of us is out to lunch. Eleven years ago next month I had acute coronary-artery problems that would kill me sooner or later unless corrected. A believer laid hands on me and I was cured of it. And to me it makes no difference that that believer was a cardiac surgeon and the hands he laid on me involved using his skills to move veins from my legs to bypass the blocked arteries -- he was doing healing in God's name. And the results of that and the things that happened to me in consequence constitute a miracle in my life, and not one event in it involved a supernatural occurrence that a skeptic would wish to debunk. For the record, the point in time when I was coming out of the anesthetic after surgery, I had been scheduled to read a passage from Ezekiel at our church's Easter Vigil service: "I will take away your heart of stone; I will give you a new heart and a new spirit." Allowing arterial plaque to stand for stone, a fair equivalence in my book, that is exactly what happened to me. His gift to me, and a miracle. Regardless of the fact that no angels heralded it, there was not a supernatural event of any sort involved (other than the "new spirit" -- a subjective feeling on my part that I will avow happened but on which no objective judgment is possible).

So, while Randy is buying into some claims that are, to say the least, subject to debunkery, he is not as a whole wrong.

And the point that, because a Christian might claim that the situation where a man happens to be driving down the road with a full gas can and rescues the people who ran out of gas is in fact a "miracle of convergence," because the people asked God for help and he as God's agent provided it, and the skeptic will say that it's one of those coincidences that can be expected to happen from time to time, neither is completely wrong; each has a point on his side -- and there's a third viewpoint that doesn't often get expressed: Synchronicity -- that viewpoint (a) might be accurate even if there is no God orchestrating the event.

I've said before that "faith" is not subscribing to some series of unprovable propositions; it's putting one's trust in a God whose reality is clear to you for one or more of the reasons rational people evaluate ideas and accept them: you may have had a "religious experience," you may accept the testimony of the Bible or of preachers or other believers, or you may buy into the historical evaluation critically and decide that there is truth behind the smoke and mirrors. Or, of course, any two or three of these.

Finally, there are more than two ways to read the Bible. Randy would presumably argue strongly for a fairly literalist standpoint. And Jab or Czarcasm would assume that some of the off-the-wall stories in it and the abhorrent practices attributed to God's command suggest that it's the work of men of their time, no better or worse than others, who purported that God commanded them to slay all the Amelekites, or sent two bears to eat 42 children who mocked His prophet, or whatever.

But things like midrash need to be taken into account too. Stylistically, the writers of the Bible were working in the Hebrew tradition of writing, and a story need not be reported verbatim to carry a meaning of some importance; fables based on historical figures were quite within the realm of accepted practice. (Paging Parson Weems; there's a cherry tree down!) So the idea that Jesus might not have somehow changed water into wine, transformed a few loaves and fishes into dinner for 5,000 folks, or blasted a fig tree, but there was a meaning behind those stories that was what the writer wanted to convey, would justify to them including them in their books. We must be cautious not to do "Whig history" in which everything has to be evaluated by today's standards. "True or false" is not a valid question about, say, an Aesop or la Fontaine fable -- nobody seriously believes that a mouse extracted a thorn from a lion's paw and later was saved by that same lion; everybody hears that as emblematic of "what goes around comes around" as regards doing a kindness to another. And it's not out of line to suggest that that is accurate of writers working in a similar tradition either. Gaudere never meant that she had personally met a rabbi whom God had damned to Hell for his sins, who rejoiced because he could now be sure of loving God for Himself and not at least slightly in hope of buying him off." And the story loses nothing from being a classic "midrash" story. So that approach to criticism is worth looking at.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Opus1
Every religion in existence tells you that if you just try it, you'll see that they're right. Mormons have the "way of Moroni." Hindus tell you to try various types of yoga.
I did a web search on "way of moroni" and only had 18 hits, almost all of which were akin to "By the way, Moroni 7:1 says...." I don't find Mormons to be the type of people to keep things secret, so please explain.

As for Hinduism, some sects do have an asectic marga through which followers of it would attain a knowledge of Brahman and attain moshkra. Via la difference.

1) How many people do you know of who have tried your test?
That I know now? None, but I confess I only currently know about thirty people.

2) How many of them did not profess belief in Jesus as the son of God before, but ended up doing so because of said test?
Other than myself (although I had an open mind) I don't know any.
3) Do you know of anyone, either personally or anecdotally, who tried this test and did not end up professing Jesus to be the son of God?
That is entirely possible. Different cultures have different names for... well, He/She-is-He/She-who-is. I have never heard of anyone who ended up an atheist.
4) Have you conducted any systematic study, controlling for all relevant variables?
I am always looking for volunteers.
5) Have you compared your test to other tests? For example, how many individuals do you know who were non-Hindus, practiced yoga for many years, and became Hindus because the practice opened their minds to God?
There may be other paths to the knowledge of God.

He says that I don't have to take his word, because mainstream Christianity has been teaching the same thing for 2000 years. I'd like to see his evidence that mainstream Christians have advocated giving away all of one's worldly possessions as the way to discovering that their religion is true.
You mean, beyond what I posted last time? I thought that covered it pretty well. OK, again from the catchism (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/believe.html#Father):
The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin.
Better? I mean, the idea that sin separates a person from God is hardly original with me.

jmullaney has argued that those who keep Christ's teachings are Christians, even if they don't know so.
I have only repeated what Jesus himself says, that anyone who keeps his comandments loves him and is loved by God and God will reveal himself to them.

Based upon this absurd definition, his test is guaranteed to work, because Jesus advocated giving away all one had. Therefore, anyone who does this is de facto a Christian.
I don't know how you can say that unless you have so quickly forgotten the nature of the hypothesis! :confused:

[Randy]

Originally posted by Polycarp
Eleven years ago next month I had acute coronary-artery problems that would kill me sooner or later unless corrected. A believer laid hands on me and I was cured of it. And to me it makes no difference that that believer was a cardiac surgeon and the hands he laid on me involved using his skills to move veins from my legs to bypass the blocked arteries -- he was doing healing in God's name. And the results of that and the things that happened to me in consequence constitute a miracle in my life, and not one event in it involved a supernatural occurrence that a skeptic would wish to debunk. For the record, the point in time when I was coming out of the anesthetic after surgery, I had been scheduled to read a passage from Ezekiel at our church's Easter Vigil service: "I will take away your heart of stone; I will give you a new heart and a new spirit." Allowing arterial plaque to stand for stone, a fair equivalence in my book, that is exactly what happened to me. His gift to me, and a miracle. Regardless of the fact that no angels heralded it, there was not a supernatural event of any sort involved (other than the "new spirit" -- a subjective feeling on my part that I will avow happened but on which no objective judgment is possible).

Thanks Polycarp for getting this thing back on track. I got lost there for awhile.

I've seen with my own eyes lots of these miracles. My sister was healed of Epilepsy when she was in her teens, by the laying on of hands. During such prayer I have felt an "electrical charge" feeling, start at the top of my head and go right on out through my feet during my healing. Money has come in when we needed it. I've seen a man instantaneously regain hearing in an ear. I know a woman personally who was healed of Diabetes after a visit from Jesus while she was in the hospital. I've seen miraculous gifts in practice. I could go on.

But Opus1 doesn't believe any of that. He believes in "diseases curing themselves", which admittedly cancer does go into remission at times, and "lucky coincidences". He needs Documentation. I can tell him what I've seen with my eyes, but I can't place documentation for it here. He asked me what the biggest miracle I have seen, that I would like to debate on the SDMB. How can I debate them?

That's not the point I was trying to make anyway. I was trying to say that God doesn't usually draw people to him through miracles. Seeing a miracle will NOT produce Faith in anyone.

By the way..this quote from George Washington from "Haley's Bible Handbook".

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"

From that quote, it looks like the "Deity" he believed in was the one in the Bible.

[Opus1]

Randy:

How would you feel if somebody told you that the only evidence he had for alien abductions was his own experience? Would you believe him? How about somebody who told you that he had seen Elvis yesterday? Do you understand why anecdotal evidence and personal testimony is not valid?

[super_head]

Originally posted by Randy
By the way..this quote from George Washington from "Haley's Bible Handbook".

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"

From that quote, it looks like the "Deity" he believed in was the one in the Bible.



I've searched all over the web and cannot find one independent confirmation of that quote - I've also seen it referenced as being in his farewell address (it isn't) and in his daily prayer diary (where does one find this?). I even did a text search of his written works and transcriptions at http://www.virginia.edu -- with no luck.

Randy - if you have a citation for that quote, I'd like to see it (aside from a third party). I've already found that Christian sites saying it was his farewell address are, well, from what I can tell, dead wrong - I'd like to see the truth behind all of it whatever it may be.

[Protesilaus]

Originally posted by Randy
From that quote, it looks like the "Deity" he believed in was the one in the Bible.

Well, if you didn't like the three Washington-related quotes from my last post, I've got some more.

About.com: Quotes on Religion - George Washington (http://www.atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/library/quotes/bl_q_GWashington.htm)

Furthermore, in Chapter 3 (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html) of Six Historic Americans (1906), author John E. Remsburg gives rather convincing proof that George Washington was not a Christian. Chapter 5 (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_5.html) strongly suggests that Abraham Lincoln wasn't, either.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Polycarp
Jab commented:
Is Jesus God or is God Jesus?
Which is by no means the first time he's played the Jesus vs. God argument in religious discussions. I have a lot of respect for Jab's capabilities in thoughtfully arguing the atheist viewpoint, even on the Pizza Parlor (though not under his real name) ;) .[/b]Thanks. Why is The Pizza Parlor down? I haven't been able to get into it since Friday.

[H]ere you're insisting on not playing by the definitions formulated by the expert theorists.[/b]My problem is that I don't understand the definitions. Does God suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder? It's the only way that God could know something that Jesus doesn't (the time of the Second Coming and Judgment Day.) (Of course, the more likely possiblility is that Jesus was the merely-human son of a woman named Mary and no more the Son of God than you or I and that he never performed miracles.) It's like I said on The Pizza Parlor before it went down: Metaphysics makes my head swim; quantum mechanics makes more sense to me.

(I realize it can be a poor argument to say, "I don't understand it; therefore it isn't valid." But it's not necessarily a poor argument. Assume you are a chemist; if you don't understand how water can be transformed into wine, chances are it never happened. Assume you are an astronomer; if you don't understand how the Earth could have stood still for a day, chances are it never happened. I am not a scientist, but I think I've read enough science books to understand the principles.)

It is not necessary to buy into the dogma of the Trinity to accept it as the basis on which orthodox Christians make their arguments.I understand. You have to know what the dogma is before you can refute it. Or agree with it, for that matter.

[Randy]

Originally posted by Opus1
Randy:

How would you feel if somebody told you that the only evidence he had for alien abductions was his own experience? Would you believe him? How about somebody who told you that he had seen Elvis yesterday? Do you understand why anecdotal evidence and personal testimony is not valid?


Opus1

I have understood all along. When I was 15 yrs old my parents, afer having been in a kind of "dead" church for most their life, began STUDYING the Bible along with friends of theirs. They discovered things that they had never realized before; the gifts of the Spirit.

I have seen these things since then and I am 41 yrs old now. Many, many things. So you can see where I find it hard to understand someone just refusing to believe something because they have never seen it, or think it's ridiculous. And I understand your skeptism, and the "alien abduction" example you used. I think the BIG difference is this. How many people claim alien abduction? I might be surprised at the number, but I would guess in the U.S. maybe hundreds, and worldwide maybe thousands, if that. There are THOUSANDS of folks in the U.S., maybe tens of thousands who have seen the gifts of the Spirit in action, (which include healing, words of knowledge, prophecy..etc.) (again I'm guessing) and millions worldwide. IF that many people started reporting alien abductions, it would be something that I would have to start looking in to.

In Korea, and South America in the last few years they have witnessed "miracle crusades" where the power of God has been turned loose on people who have never really heard the Gospel of Jesus before, stadiums full of people. The thing that touches me most is seeing children getting healed. They are genuine in that way, you know, why would they fake it? This is all reported in many books and Christian publications, but again, not notarized.

Sadly, another reason that widespread miracles amy not be occuring in the U.S. is the state of Christians here. We seem to be slackers.

Oh, and what I meant by other Gods was other spiritual powers or forces.


super_head

Sorry the only cite I have for that quote is out of the book I mentioned, "Halley's Bible Handbook", which gives the quote, but no references to go with it. The reason I give it credibility is because the first edition of this book was printed in 1924, and I have the sixteenth edition (1944) and the seventy-sixth edition printed in 1993. I kinda reasoned that by now they would've had time to work the bugs out. But, I'll concede that one.