What would you do if you found out God existed

[Captain_Nemo]

That's easy, just do the rice experiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1UdgEKDw7c

Is this a joke?

Just make somebody else do it for You if You think You'd make a fool out of Yourself

Or try talking to somebody who talks to plants, that should be an enticing first step, maybe

[Whateverist]

Establishing the likelihood of anything supernatural existing is not easy. It is you who are easy, easily convinced and eager to be convinced. That isn't what we had in mind.

[Pat Mustard]

Just on the tumor miracle - the doctors said her recovery was nothing abnormal and followed the expected response to treatment that they'd done before - not a single one of the medical staff responded to the Vatican's call for someone to support it as a miracle.  That's just the most blatant one that comes to my mind, I'm sure other people are more informed on other miracles.

It's interesting to note that the rcc effectively abandoned the idea of using the devil's advocate (they had earlier abolished the position as a permanent scrutineer of beatification "miracles") in any case. The fact that he was so eloquently able to destroy the church's favourite goto "miracle" when it wanted to make a saint and render it unusable so much so that karol wojtyla's canonisation miracle consisted of "some nun" living "somewhere in southern Italy" was cured of "some disease" after praying to the former pope.

[Captain_Nemo]

Establishing the likelihood of anything supernatural existing is not easy.  It is you who are easy, easily convinced and eager to be convinced.  That isn't what we had in mind.

The definition of natural is nowhere clearly stated. I assumed that supernatural is to be understood as it is being projected onto society by mass media.

It's rather obvious that such a topic should be tackled from the perspective of communication theory, but this would mean exertion from my side.

The question is not wheather the supernatural exists. The question is if it is possible to have control over information distribution, if yes to what extend. Then comes cybernetics and perception management. Rice experiment is easier

[Pat Mustard]

Bolded mine - that's pretty much what I was getting at, yeah.  If one can't definitively prove that there is no other explanation, then one is not justified in citing god as a cause, and unjustified in calling it a miracle.

I don't really agree that its completely harmless though, since any misinformation or support for a flawed way of thinking or making decisions is undesirable in and of itself, in my opinion, and could be the basis for flawed thinking in making other decisions as well. But that's a discussion for another time.

Just on the tumor miracle - the doctors said her recovery was nothing abnormal and followed the expected response to treatment that they'd done before - not a single one of the medical staff responded to the Vatican's call for someone to support it as a miracle.  That's just the most blatant one that comes to my mind, I'm sure other people are more informed on other miracles.

I googled around for the tumor miracle. Looks like there's a lot of conflicting reports. 

The story goes that she was being seen by doctors for a mass/tumor in her abdomen caused by some kind of infection secondary to tuberculosis. Apparently her belly was distended because of it. This much seems to be confirmed. 

She said she was still not getting well despite medical treatments (which consisted of antibiotics she took for almost a year), and on the anniversary day of Mother Theresa's death, still feeling extremely sick, she was helped to a church where they prayed for Mother's intercession and rubbed a medal over her distended belly. She fell asleep and when she woke up her belly was flat and the pain was completely gone, never to return again.  

Apparently three doctors did decline to testify for a miracle (as you said), but there were supposedly other doctors who treated her who did back up her claims. She was set up for surgery to remove the tumor but was too sick to be put under general anesthesia so she never went through with it.     

Her husband initially called it a hoax but later said he believes it was a miracle, which I found odd. 

Anyway, I'm not sure what to think of this one. On one hand she was receiving antibiotics for a long time, on the other hand it seems odd that she'd be cured so suddenly overnight, precisely because she as getting treated for so long and apparently not getting better. And it is interesting that she'd be cured on the exact anniversary day of the saint she prayed to, but that could just be a crazy coincidence. I'd have to get an explanation from the church investigators as to why they don't think this overnight cure was medically possible. As of now I'm not entirely convinced.   

I looked through several articles about this, but these were the two that stuck out to me most:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asi...0bc2086e86

and video: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-in...-my-tumour

What do you think? Do you think she could be lying or exaggerating a bit?

So because she's catlick you accept the same story you wouldn't accept from "orange juice cures AIDS" woo website, or an anti-vaxxer "my daughter got autism two months after her older brother was vaccinated, the vaccines caused it" story? Says much about your credulousness.

[possibletarian]

To clarify though, I don't believe God "causes" any of those things you mentioned, Possi. They are caused by human beings using their free will to hurt others, or they are caused by nature. God allows those things to happen by not divinely intervening in our world or in our actions to stop them, but He doesn't cause them.

Hi there CL
I believe you when you say you don't believe that god causes these things, of course you don't no rational person would. My argument was more based on the free will argument, free will does not preclude a sovereign god interfering, avoiding or stopping some circumstances, especially ones that lead to suffering. For instance if a parents see the children fighting, and they pick up weapons to use on one another then you and I would of course intervene, we would no longer think that the individuals right and freedom of expression was more important than stopping injury.

It's at this point that the theist interject arguments along the line of 'his ways are not our ways' or 'it's all part of the big picture' or it's all about free will' which at least to me is nonsense, otherwise why have a justice system at all? The bible, theists say is god's revealed word and it contains many laws that interfere with what we call free will from the very sensible rule not to murder, to the absurd rule about not rubbing sticks together on a Sabbath.
When you bring a child up 'in the way he should go' or the secular equivalent to teach a kid to be good you are also indoctrinating a child and interfering with free will.

Of course if someone decides to do something evil, then that's down to them, but which one of us would not love for that to be stopped by law enforcement of some kind, or at least arrested after the event? For a god who can see all these things and still does not interfere is about as good as no god at all, why instil a sense of justice in his word (in the Christian case the bible) while at the same time acting as if he does not exist in these matters.

As for natural disasters, that's a perfect case in point, god could simply stop those without interfering with anyone's free will.

Regards
possibletarian

[Pat Mustard]

Name one. Give us just one documented proven case of a miracle.

I already gave one miracle I believe in. And I never said anything about it being "proven". The supernatural can't be proven.

So you have exactly zero miracles you can point to. You have no evidence.

Colour me unsurprised.

[Whateverist]

Establishing the likelihood of anything supernatural existing is not easy.  It is you who are easy, easily convinced and eager to be convinced.  That isn't what we had in mind.

The definition of natural is nowhere clearly stated. I assumed that supernatural is to be understood as it is being projected onto society by mass media.

It's rather obvious that such a topic should be tackled from the perspective of communication theory, but this would mean exertion from my side.

The question is not wheather the supernatural exists. The question is if it is possible to have control over information distribution, if yes to what extend. Then comes cybernetics and perception management. Rice experiment is easier

What I can't figure out is whether you actually think you've said anything or if you're just blowing smoke up my ass.  If you want better treatment, try saying something you actually think is true in a way that has a chance of communicating.

[FatAndFaithless]

I already gave one miracle I believe in. And I never said anything about it being "proven". The supernatural can't be proven.

So you have exactly zero miracles you can point to. You have no evidence.

Colour me unsurprised.

CL has made it pretty clear that she doesn't take her beliefs as absolute certainty and has acknowledged the problems that other folks (including me) have with the evidence given for things like miracles (see our conversation in the last couple pages).  That doesn't mean the conversation isn't worth having, and looking at any miracle claim and the evidence for/against it is usually productive and interesting for both parties...providing they're as reasonable as CL.  Don't try that shit with Drich or Rik.

[Catholic_Lady]

I already gave one miracle I believe in. And I never said anything about it being "proven". The supernatural can't be proven.

So you have exactly zero miracles you can point to. You have no evidence.

Colour me unsurprised.

Lol ok big boy