The God of Convenience

[Esquilax]

You may be right, but I don't know of any sources, that with were contemporary with Plato's lifetime and prove his existence, that have been established in a different way than Plato's own existence.

Well, we have actual writings from Plato himself, plenty of reference to his impact in both Athenian and Syracuse politics- in fact it was a christian emperor that eventually closed his Academy for good, on the basis that it was pagan- and numerous secondary sources too.

Not to mention, the claims regarding Plato are way different from those regarding Jesus; the former are mundane, whereas the latter are extraordinary. If you truly wouldn't accept the existence of Plato- assuming you're being serious and not just engaging in equivocation- on the basis of better evidence than we have for Jesus, then what business have you accepting the existence of Jesus, for whom the claims are vastly more impossible, on worse evidence?

Put simply, accepting the probability of Plato's existence (because all of this is probabilistic), even if the level of evidence was equal with that of Jesus, doe not require me to believe that the physical laws of the universe were ever suspended, as acceptance of Jesus would.

Why? Do you have some kind of proof that the authors of the new testament are not who they claim to be? If they are the authors that the early church identified, then they were mostly all contemporaries of Jesus.

Well, given that even church historians accept that the new testament authors were anonymous, and that the names attributed to each book were added later, and in some cases even the idea that those names refer to the apostles specifically were added later still, I don't think I'm being particularly controversial. You really need to do some research on the history of the gospel, Lek; do you realize that in this conversation it's the atheist that is in line with the opinions of christian historians, while the christian is directly contradicting them?

Besides, none of the gospel authors ever made the claim that they were contemporaries to Jesus. I know that's what you think, because it's more convenient, but if you actually read the books, not a one of them contains that claim; you're just patching it together based on an assumption, made without evidence, that they truly were who the books claim them to be... and we know that they aren't, because we know when those names were added to the books.

Fair enough. But how do you prove something happened by supernatural means, when you can always claim that the answer just hasn't been found yet in the natural realm?

This is only an issue if you continue to assume that the only thing you're going to get is a lack of evidence for natural means, which isn't what you need. If you get positive evidence for supernatural causation, which is what you'd actually need for scientific verification, then there would be no question that the cause was supernatural.

Beyond that, it's not my problem that your claims aren't falsifiable or capable of generating positive evidence. That's a problem with your claims, not the methodology that would verify them.

The atheist answer to the question is "I don't know, but I'm convinced that science will find the answer someday."

Please don't speak for me. Science is a method of obtaining knowledge, not an answer that specifically denies supernatural causation. Science might find the answer, but it isn't the only way to obtain knowledge, nor is it the sort of atheist go-to that you and other theists want to characterize it as. Personally, I respect science because I see how it works and what it does, I've seen the results of it change the world over and over again, but you strawman me and other atheists when you posit what you do.

The answer is "I don't know, neither do you, but neither of us is going to be able to find an answer just by pointing to a lack of results and positing magic as a necessary solution because of that."

Seriously: why is it that you think that no scientific results, equals god? Because from where I'm sitting, what that says is that your bar for proof of god is zero, which just means you're presupposing he exists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A person has a terminal illness and one day it is gone. A team of doctors and scientists examine him and find no natural explanation for the sudden cure. There is no evidence for a supernatural cure or that nothing beyond natural exists? Who is living in a box here?

Link, please.

[Esquilax]

A person has a terminal illness and one day it is gone. A team of doctors and scientists examine him and find no natural explanation for the sudden cure. There is no evidence for a supernatural cure or that nothing beyond natural exists? Who is living in a box here?

No answer, means that there's no answer. What's your justification for leaping directly from "science cannot explain this," to "the christian god cured him"? Where are the indications, and science not having an answer is not an indication, that leads you to that conclusion?

Because as of now, I could make the claim that anti-god, who ensures that no gods or supernatural elements can ever exist, cured the guy, and I'd have the same amount of evidence. Therefore, god and the supernatural cannot exist, because anti-god cured the guy.

What, you want to disagree with me? You want to keep living in your box, there?

[Lek]

If it is unexplainable then it is unexplainable and not god did it. It's better to continue to look for an answer which can help others in the future than lock it in the god box once and forever. It's a very far cry from not being able to explain something at a particular moment in time to making the factual statement, one particular god of one particular religion has chosen one particular person to work one particular miracle.

If a person was cured of a terminal illness by a seemingly supernatural experience, wouldn't that be able to help others in the future? By disregarding it, you could be hurting others in the same type of situations. If it was me, I would be open to trying everything.

[FatAndFaithless]

What the hell is a "seemingly supernatural experience"? Your example was "he was sick, then he was suddenly not sick". There's nothing about that situation that points to the supernatural, it's just a situation for which we currently do not have a scientific explanation. I don't know how exactly you would provide evidence for a supernatural cause, but the simple lack of an explanation at this point is not evidence.

How exactly would you define 'supernatural'?

[Lek]

If it is unexplainable then it is unexplainable and not god did it. It's better to continue to look for an answer which can help others in the future than lock it in the god box once and forever. It's a very far cry from not being able to explain something at a particular moment in time to making the factual statement, one particular god of one particular religion has chosen one particular person to work one particular miracle.

If the person had specifically prayed to God, and there is no natural explanation for it, why couldn't it have been God that did it? That's I say you have a closed mind. Science tells me that the person should have died from the illness, not be healed. The people are probably glad that they didn't listen to anybody who told them not to bother praying about it.

[FatAndFaithless]

If it is unexplainable then it is unexplainable and not god did it. It's better to continue to look for an answer which can help others in the future than lock it in the god box once and forever. It's a very far cry from not being able to explain something at a particular moment in time to making the factual statement, one particular god of one particular religion has chosen one particular person to work one particular miracle.

If the person had specifically prayed to God, and there is no natural explanation for it, why couldn't it have been God that did it? That's I say you have a closed mind. Science tells me that the person should have died from the illness, not be healed. The people are probably glad that they didn't listen to anybody who told them not to bother praying about it.

If the person had specifically entreated leprechauns to heal him, and there's no natural explanation for it, why couldn't it have been leprechauns that did it?

[Foxaèr]

If the person had specifically prayed to God, and there is no natural explanation for it, why couldn't it have been God that did it?

Jumping to a rash conclusion, based on zero evidence to support the claim, is unreasonable. What is so FUCKING hard to understand about that?

[The Grand Nudger]

Every morning at 6am I get up and take a shit, which causes the sun to rise. No reason to thank me Lek, it's yet another service I provide.

-On the other hand, if you can understand why my taking a shit every day right at the crack of dawn isn't a case for my shit causing the sun to rise -at all...then you already have the answer to your own question, don't you?

---

The less amusing explanation for why your leap of faith isn't grounded in solid thinking is, in case you're interested, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

---

[h4ym4n]

If the person had specifically prayed to God, and there is no natural explanation for it, why couldn't it have been God that did it? That's I say you have a closed mind. Science tells me that the person should have died from the illness, not be healed. The people are probably glad that they didn't listen to anybody who told them not to bother praying about it.

So god steps in and cures the person of the illness god gave to them because they prayed?

Does God do the same for the 20k praying children that starve to death every single day?