I suppose it is not very helpful, but it depends on what kind of sign we are talking about, how strong the evidence for it, what religion it purports to prove, and whether or not the sign “makes sense” in the context of that religion.
Christians have been warned that false prophets will arise, and will do “signs” in the sense that I think you are talking about, so that the well has been poisoned for future miracles from other religions, if you want to think about it that way.
The example you give of Koran verses on someone’s leg doesn’t seem to me to rise to the level of serious evidence of Islam, if that is what you mean. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a reasonable example. I am not much on weeping statues or the Blessed Virgin of Guadalupe appearing in the tortilla, either.
Jesus says “you shall know them (prophets) by their fruits”. The fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness and self-control. A “sign” that reinforces those kinds of things would be worthy of consideration, therefore. The Prophet Muhammed appearing in the clouds and saying “death to the unbelievers” or Buddha being reincarnated and telling me there is no God and no point to life except to escape it, probably not so much.
Thanks for the response. Don’t know if you went to the link or looked at the video, but I’d say it’s well beyond “saw a vision in my omelet” territory. Of course, the message is innocuous enough to fit any of the Abrahamic religions “Be grateful to Allah” if you take Allah to be a re-applicable generic term and is at least being reported that the locals are interpreting this as meaning that Allah wants peace.
Islam does a great job of also poisoning the well against prophets by saying that Mohammed was the final one. Nine month old kids make lousy motivational speakers anyway. They just see this as a sign that God is out there and cares is how I interpret the response.
To me, it looks like someone traced the letters on the kid’s skin with a fingernail or something. If God actually wants me to become a Muslim, He is going to have to be a little more obvious.
Which seems a perfectly fine response. But it highlights what might be a reason that God doesn’t rely on signs like this very much. You could also interpret this as a sign to renew your attacks on the godless heathen, should you be so inclined.
Or if you are American, to set up a shrine and start charging for tickets.
Your article says that these kinds of signs are rare in Islam, no doubt for that reason.
C.S.Lewis mentions this - some religions don’t lend themselves to miracles. If Buddha taught that reality was an illusion, then it makes little sense for him to do miracles to prove it. Same here - if Muhammed was the last prophet, and the Q’uran the final revelation, then if messages are appearing on this kid’s leg, does that make him a prophet?
My religious practice is based on their being no (active, sentient, interventionist) god. I would go in armed with Science and assume there was a very good scientific explanation in there somewhere.
I’m not sure that miracles are supposed to convert anyone to anything. In my church we say ‘faith precedes the miracle’–that is, that first you develop faith and commitment, and then you might experience something. Conversion is not the purpose of miracles, and someone who converted on that basis would probably not stick around. Miracles and signs are not the proper foundation of faith.
Also, IMO miracles are usually very personal experiences. I would not pay attention to publicized things like words appearing on someone’s skin or things like that, and usually assume that they’re not genuine. IMO someone who experienced something would probably not talk about it much–too personal. And, other people’s miracles would not necessarily have a lot of meaning for anyone else–you’d be happy for them, but you wouldn’t base your own faith on that foundation. You have to have your own personal experiences.
I’m quite sure that people in all sorts of religions have their own experiences of God and answers to prayer. That doesn’t mean that I need to convert–I have my own experiences and am trying to do what God wants me to do.
My answer is “other” because, well, it’s hard for me to conceive.
Like, the Mormons base their religion on some miracles. Islam is based on the miracle of God appearing to Mohammed. The Dalai Lama is supposedly a miracle.
So…do I think these religions are based on lies (#3)? Er, nah. I cannot say. But it doesn’t make me want to convert, or reinforce my faith.
I lean towards “there is just one God” way of thinking. Switching over to some other way of worshiping Him doesn’t seem like something that would interest me.
This rings true for me. You don’t believe in God because He did a trick for you.
“Yahweh” means something like “I Am That I Am” in Hebrew. God just IS. He is completely unconditional and unconditioned. Therefore an experience of God is completely different from every other experience. You can’t really say 'If this is real, then God is real". God is more real than the reality you experience every day.
Also quite true. Which is why the answer to this -
is, “probably not”. What is completely convincing to me might not work at all for someone else. People believe (or disbelieve) for all kinds of reasons, some good and some bad.
I assume that if other people had had the same experiences as I, then they would also believe in God. But some of those experiences cannot be had at second hand.
“God has children, but no grandchildren.” You have to see it for yourself.
I don’t believe in Christianity because of Jesus’ face appearing on a tortilla shell; I believe for different reasons and I discount the tortilla shell business as wishful thinking.
So I’m not going to believe in Islam because of what’s going on with that baby. There could be any number of things going on: fakery, wishful thinking, etc.
I think there are Christians that believe because of miracles. The thing is, to someone else, that miracle is usually not convincing.
While miracles can help persuade someone, they aren’t going to believe if they don’t want to. We have Paul, for example. He credits his belief to the Damascus road miracle. Yet, he was a Pharisee. He could have thought Christ was a demon. But he didn’t. I think the point of showing that Paul approved but did not participate in Stephen’s death shows he had at least some reservations. I think that was the whole point of the revelation from Christ. “It’s hard to kick against the goads” indicates that he found it hard to be a Christian-killer. Perhaps because the required killing made him doubt his faith?