"Of Miracles" by David Hume

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho: Most likely, WLC would deny the occurrence of miracles that are not consistent with his particular brand of religion.  For some examples of the sorts of things I mean, you can take a look at some of the stories in Hume's essay, or take a look at:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...kooks.html

I doubt that WLC will accept the miracle stories of Vespasian curing a blind man with his spittle, or curing a lame man by the touch of his foot, divinely made possible by the god Serapis.

The problem is that the Christian religion is so goofy about the supernatural that WLC and other believers have a smorgasbord of possible responses.  He could selectively play the skeptic and deny the alleged miracle took place at all.  He could affirm belief that it happened but was really the result of Satan's trickery.  He could even take the tack that the miracle happened and was really the working of Yahweh/Christ but was misunderstood by the witnesses.

Yes.  How he would react to alternative miracle stories would affect the nature of the discussion.  If he rejects other miracles, then I would point out that he does not follow the same standards of evidence for all miracle stories.  And if accepts them, then, if he takes the 'Satan' caused them approach, I would ask him how he knew that the Bible isn't really the work of Satan, misleading him from God's truth.  And so forth.  The exact way the argument goes depends on all of the details of the position that someone is taking.

But no matter how one turns the issue over, WLC is an idiot who is not applying the same standards to all cases.  He simply presupposes the Bible, and goes from there.  That is begging the question.  To avoid begging the question, he would have to first establish that the Bible is true, and we would then be looking that he applies the same standards of evidence to other ancient books, like The Iliad and The Odyssey.  We can be quite sure he does not do that, and that there are non-rational forces at work for his particular selection.

[downbeatplumb]

Yeah but didn't pee wee get busted with his wee wee in his hand in a porn theater in NYC?

What else are you supposed to do in a porn theatre?

Its like arresting someone for gun possession at a rifle range. 

[Minimalist]

MIRACLE, n. An act or event out of the order of nature and unaccountable, as beating a normal hand of four kings and an ace with four aces and a king.

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

[Crossless2.0]

You nailed it, Pyrrho. And that's why I can't take WLC or anyone who cites him as a thinker to be reckoned with remotely seriously. He's another sad example of a reasonably bright person who has committed a kind of intellectual suicide in the name of his religion. It's disgusting and pathetic, more so because he makes a decent living pandering to idiots who crave a patina of intellectual respectability to conceal their bad consciences for believing such nonsense as their religion requires.

[Minimalist]

Yes.  It's a lucrative scam and he is a con artist.

[Pyrrho]

You nailed it, Pyrrho.  And that's why I can't take WLC or anyone who cites him as a thinker to be reckoned with remotely seriously.  He's another sad example of a reasonably bright person who has committed a kind of intellectual suicide in the name of his religion.  It's disgusting and pathetic, more so because he makes a decent living pandering to idiots who crave a patina of intellectual respectability to conceal their bad consciences for believing such nonsense as their religion requires.

Yes, the money is generally better in charlatanism than in honesty.  I am reminded of James Randi exposing frauds, and the difference in income between him and some of the frauds.  However, for people with a conscience, honesty is necessary for a good night's sleep.

[cocunningham]

Yes.  It's a lucrative scam and he is a con artist.

I've often wondered how many of those that profit from pandering their religion really believe what they are spewing or if it's just a good business model.

[Minimalist]

You mean like "Pastor Gas?"

[Pyrrho]

Yes.  It's a lucrative scam and he is a con artist.

I've often wondered  how many of those that profit from pandering their religion really believe what they are spewing or if it's just a good business model.

It is often impossible to know.  Sometimes, it may be a combination of lying, but believing some of their bullshit.  When someone like Peter Popoff is caught in a cheat, one knows that he is a con artist.  Of course, that does not prove that he is an atheist, so he might believe some part of the garbage that he has preached.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#Skeptic


I rather prefer the original broadcast on the Tonight Show, but have not found the video of it online.  But this will do:





This second one gives one a depressing update:

[The Inquisition]

Pyrrho: Most likely, WLC would deny the occurrence of miracles that are not consistent with his particular brand of religion.  For some examples of the sorts of things I mean, you can take a look at some of the stories in Hume's essay, or take a look at:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...kooks.html

I doubt that WLC will accept the miracle stories of Vespasian curing a blind man with his spittle, or curing a lame man by the touch of his foot, divinely made possible by the god Serapis.

The problem is that the Christian religion is so goofy about the supernatural that WLC and other believers have a smorgasbord of possible responses.  He could selectively play the skeptic and deny the alleged miracle took place at all.  He could affirm belief that it happened but was really the result of Satan's trickery.  He could even take the tack that the miracle happened and was really the working of Yahweh/Christ but was misunderstood by the witnesses.

Yes.  How he would react to alternative miracle stories would affect the nature of the discussion.  If he rejects other miracles, then I would point out that he does not follow the same standards of evidence for all miracle stories.  And if accepts them, then, if he takes the 'Satan' caused them approach, I would ask him how he knew that the Bible isn't really the work of Satan, misleading him from God's truth.  And so forth.  The exact way the argument goes depends on all of the details of the position that someone is taking.

But no matter how one turns the issue over, WLC is an idiot who is not applying the same standards to all cases.  He simply presupposes the Bible, and goes from there.  That is begging the question.  To avoid begging the question, he would have to first establish that the Bible is true, and we would then be looking that he applies the same standards of evidence to other ancient books, like The Iliad and The Odyssey.  We can be quite sure he does not do that, and that there are non-rational forces at work for his particular selection.

Isn't the argument that miracles occur, very similar to Kalam?

Even if we accept that a miracle occurs, that doesn't mean A god did it and certainly doesn't mean one's own god did it. This is where Kalam fails as well.