(January 29, 2015 at 12:15 pm)SteveII Wrote: But you cannot say conclusively that God is not communicating with that changed person in some way.

Actually, we can.

In the field of psychology it is known as a form of self-delusion.

(January 29, 2015 at 12:22 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 12:19 pm)SteveII Wrote: Can you give an example of a miracle from another religion?

Here's a good list of miracles claimed to be performed by Mohammed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Muhammad

Take your pick.

I would say that if a supernatural event happens and is witnessed, then the likelihood of that event is directly correlated to the quality and quantity of witnesses and/or the physical proof--just like any event that ever happened.

This brings up another point. Just because an event is highly improbable does not mean it is a miracle. Christians should not describe every good thing that happens to them as miracles. I would perhaps adopt a working definition of 1) no physical explanation for the event whatsoever or 2) a highly improbable event happening in a timeframe to imply a purpose. For example, if someone is about to shoot you and a sinkhole open under them and swallows them up.

Regarding the Muslim miracles list from Wikipedia, I have a couple of observations. While splitting the moon would be a worthy of being called a miracle, there seems to be some debate if that was real, future or figurative. The trees moving would be cool. Evasion of capture might be improbable but not impossible. Spiritual journeys aside, the rest of the list consists of mainly manipulating food and water or prophecies. There was one healing a sick eye by spitting in it...I don't know.

Regarding the difference of Christianity, Jesus did do miracles, arguably more impressive than Mohammad--but that's not the point. The point was the resurrection AND the related message of atonement.

I realize you are trying to nail me down on was it even possible for Mohammad to do miracles. I would say no for the following reason: I don't think the Islamic religion/theology is the best explanation for our observations about God and reality. It seems illogical to me to think that God would work miracles in support of a religion that denies the basics of the one I believe in.

(January 29, 2015 at 3:07 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 12:22 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Here's a good list of miracles claimed to be performed by Mohammed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Muhammad

Take your pick.

I would say that if a supernatural event happens and is witnessed, then the likelihood of that event is directly correlated to the quality and quantity of witnesses and/or the physical proof--just like any event that ever happened.

This brings up another point. Just because an event is highly improbable does not mean it is a miracle. Christians should not describe every good thing that happens to them as miracles. I would perhaps adopt a working definition of 1) no physical explanation for the event whatsoever or 2) a highly improbable event happening in a timeframe to imply a purpose. For example, if someone is about to shoot you and a sinkhole open under them and swallows them up.

Regarding the Muslim miracles list from Wikipedia, I have a couple of observations. While splitting the moon would be a worthy of being called a miracle, there seems to be some debate if that was real, future or figurative. The trees moving would be cool. Evasion of capture might be improbable but not impossible. Spiritual journeys aside, the rest of the list consists of mainly manipulating food and water or prophecies. There was one healing a sick eye by spitting in it...I don't know.

Regarding the difference of Christianity, Jesus did do miracles, arguably more impressive than Mohammad--but that's not the point. The point was the resurrection AND the related message of atonement.

I realize you are trying to nail me down on was it even possible for Mohammad to do miracles. I would say no for the following reason: I don't think the Islamic religion/theology is the best explanation for our observations about God and reality. It seems illogical to me to think that God would work miracles in support of a religion that denies the basics of the one I believe in.

So literally, your response is no, they weren't miracles, and your reasoning is "i don't believe in that religion, so it's not true."

Pease tell me you can see how utterly dishonest that appears to us, when a muslim could say the exact same thing about christian miracle claims.

(January 29, 2015 at 2:49 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 12:15 pm)SteveII Wrote: But you cannot say conclusively that God is not communicating with that changed person in some way.

Actually, we can.

In the field of psychology it is known as a form of self-delusion.

That is not science. Science would say it does not know. That conclusion comes from the philosophy of naturalism.

(January 29, 2015 at 3:20 pm)SteveII Wrote: That is not science. Science would say it does not know. That conclusion comes from the philosophy of naturalism.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Full Definition of PSYCHOLOGY
1: the science of mind and behavior
2a: the mental or behavioral characteristics of an individual or group
b: the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity
3: a theory or system of psychology <Freudian psychology> <the psychology of Jung>

Underline mine.

(January 29, 2015 at 3:09 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 3:07 pm)SteveII Wrote: I would say that if a supernatural event happens and is witnessed, then the likelihood of that event is directly correlated to the quality and quantity of witnesses and/or the physical proof--just like any event that ever happened.

This brings up another point. Just because an event is highly improbable does not mean it is a miracle. Christians should not describe every good thing that happens to them as miracles. I would perhaps adopt a working definition of 1) no physical explanation for the event whatsoever or 2) a highly improbable event happening in a timeframe to imply a purpose. For example, if someone is about to shoot you and a sinkhole open under them and swallows them up.

Regarding the Muslim miracles list from Wikipedia, I have a couple of observations. While splitting the moon would be a worthy of being called a miracle, there seems to be some debate if that was real, future or figurative. The trees moving would be cool. Evasion of capture might be improbable but not impossible. Spiritual journeys aside, the rest of the list consists of mainly manipulating food and water or prophecies. There was one healing a sick eye by spitting in it...I don't know.

Regarding the difference of Christianity, Jesus did do miracles, arguably more impressive than Mohammad--but that's not the point. The point was the resurrection AND the related message of atonement.

I realize you are trying to nail me down on was it even possible for Mohammad to do miracles. I would say no for the following reason: I don't think the Islamic religion/theology is the best explanation for our observations about God and reality. It seems illogical to me to think that God would work miracles in support of a religion that denies the basics of the one I believe in.

So literally, your response is no, they weren't miracles, and your reasoning is "i don't believe in that religion, so it's not true."

Pease tell me you can see how utterly dishonest that appears to us, when a muslim could say the exact same thing about christian miracle claims.

How is it dishonest to think another religion is wrong? They cannot be all right. Because of the very definition of a miracle requiring the supernatural, it is very much related to what religion is true.

---

(January 29, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Xeno Wrote:

(January 29, 2015 at 3:20 pm)SteveII Wrote: That is not science. Science would say it does not know. That conclusion comes from the philosophy of naturalism.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Full Definition of PSYCHOLOGY
1: the science of mind and behavior
2a: the mental or behavioral characteristics of an individual or group
b: the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity
3: a theory or system of psychology <Freudian psychology> <the psychology of Jung>

Underline mine.

You missed the point. The conclusion that the person in question was deluded would not be a proper scientific conclusion unless you posit there is no God in which case you have overstepped science and moved on to philosophy.

(January 29, 2015 at 3:20 pm)SteveII Wrote: That is not science. Science would say it does not know. That conclusion comes from the philosophy of naturalism.

Science of psychology
Psychology as a science

(January 29, 2015 at 3:23 pm)SteveII Wrote: How is it dishonest to think another religion is wrong? They cannot be all right. Because of the very definition of a miracle requiring the supernatural, it is very much related to what religion is true.

No shit. The fact is, you're using reasoning the any adherent of any other religion could use to prove that Christianity is actually the false one, and yet you still bluster about how you've "shown us the miracle evidence" or "demonstrated that it's rational" to believe that Christianity is correct.


If a Muslim put together a similar paragraph to yours, saying that Jesus' miracles weren't as impressive as Mohammed's (though Jesus had a handful of cool ones), saying that many of Jesus' miracles were just "improbable", and saying that many of Jesus' major miracles have "debate on whether or not they happened", and then summed it up by saying "I don't think they were miracles because I don't believe that Christianity is true, and obviously God wouldn't perform miracles to deceive us of what is true, which is Islam."

What could you say against him? He would be using the exact same reasoning you have been using this entire time.

(January 29, 2015 at 3:23 pm)SteveII Wrote: How is it dishonest to think another religion is wrong? They cannot be all right.

The genuine irony that theists seem to always overlook is that the criteria a Christian uses to dismiss Islam as a true religion is the exact same criteria Islam uses to dismiss Christianity as a true religion.

---

(January 29, 2015 at 3:23 pm)SteveII Wrote: You missed the point. The conclusion that the person in question was deluded would not be a proper scientific conclusion unless you posit there is no God in which case you have overstepped science and moved on to philosophy.

It is logical and reasonable to apply the same criteria for one who genuinely believes in the existence of leprechauns and hears their voices to a theist who genuinely believes in the existence of god and hears his voice.

When there is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of something that veritably belongs in a fairy tale book and has been reasonably labeled as mythology, then it is a safe bet to logically deduce that it does not exist anywhere except as a delusion in the mind of the believer.

(January 29, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Esquilax Wrote: But surely you can see how irrelevant that distinction is? You're basically saying that Mohammad and Smith's testimonies can't be true because they aren't the kind of things that you think a god would inspire them to say. Well, who cares? The truth of a message is in no way impacted by how much it departs from orthodoxy; saying that Paul's experience was a small change, and Mohammad's experience was a big change is little more than an observance of scale, not of truth. So far you've thrown out a bunch of road blocks to this, but none of them actually address how you know that one message is true, and the other is false. All you've really managed is listing how the messages are different, and nobody was ever saying they were identical.

My point is that a message delivered by God to people [plural] over the course of three years would be superior to the private revelations of one man. You then tried to use Paul to catch me so I pointed out that Paul content was not new revelation. Mohammad and Smith wrote content that cannot be reconciled to Jesus' (Gods) teachings so therefore must be dismissed as not true.