Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I went through the entire thread, more or less, and I still do not understand what you define as a miracle. In other words, if i see something, what criteria does it have to meet for you to consider it a miracle? Keep in mind that I'm godless and cannot pray to ask god.

Very few events qualify to be called miracles; that is, they must stand up to intense scrutiny to eliminate all natural causes, fraud, and mental problems. Catholics require the event to be confirmed by non-believers to be beyond natural explanations before it is declared to be worthy of belief.

You said earlier that einstein's relativity means we cannot rule out things as impossible because now natural laws are undefined and anything could be natural we just wouldn't know it (I do not agree with this btw, I'm just trying to establish what your position is). So am I right if I say that you mean miracles are things we cannot explain by existing "natural laws" but that are actually natural and not supernatural in origin? If so, in your scenario the christian god is natural and bounded by natural laws? That would make him falsifiable and not only that, falsified. As someone pointed out earlier.

And here again you say that we must scrutinize apparent miracles for explanations and rule them out if we find one. So you mean anything we cannot explain would be a miracle, then? Would you agree that some people on this planet are smarter and more knowledgeable than others and can explain more than others? Are miracles subjective? What's a miracle to you, isn't a miracle to another christian?

I have yet to put forth an argument, and have never read Hume, please respond with what you really think and don't call me a hume disciple or accuse me of circular reasoning.

[BettyG]

Salem witch trials are a prime example of not following the rules of evidence, false accusations and lapses in due process. Sad as this was, society has learned a lot from these failures. Perhaps some of it was motivated by misunderstanding those who we would call insane. It is a lesson on what happens when the dignity of humans is ignored and free will runs amok.

It's what happens when Christianity is used as the basis for secular law. It is disingenuous of you to attempt to suggest that the extremely religious aspect of the event was irrelevant. The Bible places no value on due process or the rules of evidence (the Bible considers itself evidence of its own truth), after all, but it does call for the killing of witches.

Thus, the oldest New Testament manuscript is 6 centuries older than the oldest Illiad manuscript. Yet you say you believe that the Trojan War happened?

There is evidence that the Trojan War happened, or at least, that what we think of as the Trojan War is based, however loosely, upon real events. What you never see is a person insist that it certainly happened exactly as Homer described it, because too many elements do not correlate with reality.

Have you read the Illiad? It has some very strange creatures in it that are a stretch of the imagination to believe are true. They are so strange, it makes me wonder what the author was smoking!

If you believe wholeheartedly in a book which has talking donkeys, snakes, and bushes, it is hypocritical of you to dismiss the Iliad as obvious fantasy for having equally outlandish elements.

When someone claims to be God and backs it up with miracles, raising up dead people, and rising from the dead himself, it is believable. Archaeology has provided evidence that events in the Bible happened approximately when it says they happened instead of hundreds of years later.

It may prove that some of the events the Bible depicts actually happened. It does not even begin to demonstrate that the Bible is absolutely correct about everything it says. Your book doesn't gain 100% credibility on account of being right 1% of the time.

It takes more faith to be an atheist than I can muster. You have to follow illogical philosophies and ignore the cause and effect relationship. You have to believe the illogical idea that science is the only way to know truth, etc.

It takes a vastly larger amount of faith to believe in a god who is silent and invisible and in no way distinguishable from pure fantasy.

The thing we have not discussed is cause and effect. That is, events have causes. Miracles are historic events. Ergo, Miracles have causes. If they were explained by natural laws, fraud, or lunacy, they would not be miracles. So what is the cause of miracles? The only variable when they happened was prayer for a miracle. So it is logical to assert that miracles are caused by prayer to God. Therefore, God causes miracles and, therefore, this proves God exists.

This relies on the assertion that a legitimate miracle has ever taken place. You have not established this as factual. Everything which follows from that assertion is bogus.

Want a list of miracles? This site has a few approved ones. http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_appa...cles4.html
How are miracles approved? This video explains it. http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIVioctRuEUAWsP7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWc0dGJtBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMQ--?p=how+does+the+vatican+approved+miracles%3F&vid=beb4e8c3fbff147a083782cf269c454c&l=2%3A33&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DV.4779118569849693%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAgVnjJLarwk&tit=The+67+miracles+of+Lourdes&c=0&sigr=11ap22eg2&age=0&&tt=b
I can predict the response to this. Someone will say the people weren't really sick. Others will say they are frauds. Others will say they imagined they were cured. All these will have no evidence to back them up. Some will call me names and say I am crazy. No one will give an honest answer to how the event happened or seriously admit they do not know. Everyone here will write it off because they are sure miracles cannot happen, though they have no proof of that.
The miracle that matters most to me is that Jesus rose from the dead. How do you explain that a dead man came back to life and 500 eyewitnesses saw Him?
I predict we will go around in circles again by someone saying Jesus is a myth in spite of what the history books say. Someone will say he wasn't really dead despite having a spear put through his chest into the heart. Someone will say I'm crazy.
If you admitted that miracles happen, you would have to face the issue of the cause. Next thing I know, someone will say effects do not always have causes.
Let's stick to the topic, OK?

[Ryantology]

Want a list of miracles?

If they have been rigorously tested and confirmed to definitely, without question, the product of your specific God, to the point where no other explanation can ever work to describe the event, yes.

This site has a few approved ones.

These are approved by the Catholics. Why should I care about Catholics confirming their own biases?

How are miracles approved?

Confirmation bias and a poor understanding of how reality works.

I can predict the response to this. Someone will say the people weren't really sick. Others will say they are frauds. Others will say they imagined they were cured. All these will have no evidence to back them up. Some will call me names and say I am crazy. No one will give an honest answer to how the event happened or seriously admit they do not know. Everyone here will write it off because they are sure miracles cannot happen, though they have no proof of that.

Nope. All I need to point out is the obvious: there is no evidence that these events are the work of your God.

The miracle that matters most to me is that Jesus rose from the dead. How do you explain that a dead man came back to life and 500 eyewitnesses saw Him?

There is no evidence this actually happened.

I predict we will go around in circles again by someone saying Jesus is a myth in spite of what the history books say. Someone will say he wasn't really dead despite having a spear put through his chest into the heart. Someone will say I'm crazy.

I don't know if you're crazy or not. I am even willing to believe that a guy we think of as Jesus really lived. But, he was just a man who died a man's death. There's no proof he was the son of a God no one can prove exists, and no proof he was resurrected. I demand more reliable evidence than eyewitness reports from 2,000 years ago (with no proof that any of these people were actually eyewitnesses, and none of the actually saw him rise from the grave or exit his tomb).

The evidence is far too poor to be of any value.

If you admitted that miracles happen, you would have to face the issue of the cause. Next thing I know, someone will say effects do not always have causes.

Even if miracles really did happen, it only proves that miracles are possible. It doesn't prove that your God makes them happen. There are thousands of gods in the minds of billions of people. Why should I take your claims more seriously than theirs?[/quote]

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I can offer a possibility of what could have happened with the resurrection, that can explain 500 people having seen jesus. (I haven't touched my bible for 6 years and don't want to, so if i'm wrong in some places, just point it out).

We're talking about a time when nobody had photos taken of them, and jesus did not have a portrait done for him, right? And you said he was tortured horribly before he died, I assume they broke his face. I will point to the obvious and say that someone pretended to be jesus resurrected. Not too hard when no one has a clear memory of how he looked like anyway, and that at his most high profile moment he had a bloody face. As for his disciples confirming it was him ... well, if someone i loved died in such a horrible and unjustified manner, i'll continue on whatever he wanted when he was alive, which was to be the son of god, so i'll help spread the story.

There's a reason eyewitness testimony is not valued in science and in courtrooms.

[downbeatplumb]

The miracle that matters most to me is that Jesus rose from the dead. How do you explain that a dead man came back to life and 500 eyewitnesses saw Him?

Happens more than you'd think.
Normally due to poor medical assessment.

Do you know the credentials of the Dr that declared Jesus dead?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/de...-1.1344452

Mourners freaked out when a dead man came back to life at his own funeral.
Friends and family "jumped out of their skins" and "ran for their lives" when Brighton Dama Zanthe, 34, started moving in his coffin last Monday.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/sout...cxw8fmsj0s

Workers at a South African mortuary got the shock of their lives Sunday when a man presumed dead by his family woke up screaming nearly a day later in a refrigerated morgue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/st...-dead.html

If I see someone alive who I had thought was dead I would think they were never dead, not that there had been a miracle.

Jesus spent only a short time on the cross. A death that was supposed to take days.

And wikipedia says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

Since death does not follow immediately on crucifixion, survival after a short period of crucifixion is possible

No miracle required..job done.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I hear a circular argument: If miracles are impossible, the report of any miraculous event must be false, and therefore, miracles are impossible.

No, sorry. It is not circular because:

I am defining miracles as special acts of God in the world.

So you're making an claim of objective fact. As there is no evidence of such an occurance, it is not circular to dismiss it. Actually it's common sense.

In fact, reading through your posts, it seems that you're the one posting a lot of circular arguments.

That said, I find the term 'anti-supernaturalism' odd. It presumes that the 'supernatural' (never heard a consensual definition on this term) is a viable idea worthy of active debate. It's not until evidence comes forward that allows us to test and re-test the claims to provide verifiable (no repeatable) data sets. To me its just hokum.

[BettyG]

I hear a circular argument: If miracles are impossible, the report of any miraculous event must be false, and therefore, miracles are impossible.

No, sorry. It is not circular because:

I am defining miracles as special acts of God in the world.

So you're making an claim of objective fact. As there is no evidence of such an occurance, it is not circular to dismiss it. Actually it's common sense.

In fact, reading through your posts, it seems that you're the one posting a lot of circular arguments.

That said, I find the term 'anti-supernaturalism' odd. It presumes that the 'supernatural' (never heard a consensual definition on this term) is a viable idea worthy of active debate. It's not until evidence comes forward that allows us to test and re-test the claims to provide verifiable (no repeatable) data sets. To me its just hokum.

What I dislike about atheism is that it requires one to reject reality. You have to deny history. You have to deny that God acts in this world today.
You have to deny that science has limits. You have to have faith that you cannot know truth. You have to believe everything is relative. You have to start with the assumption of skepticism of things that are common sense and logical. You have to believe that this incredibly complex universe is just an accident. This is totally irrational. It is as if atheists start with a conclusion that God does not exist, and then work backward to make reality fit their conclusion.

If Jesus did not exist, there would have been multiple people would would object and set the record straight. No one ever did. The early Church fathers like Irenaeus loved to stamp out heresy. They would have jumped on this with a vengeance. This "Jesus is a myth" myth started in the 1800's. It is not like the Christians didn't have enough time to refute Christ's existence. It would have been refuted by the second century.

This is a web site I like. http://www.strangenotions.com/jesus-existed/
20 Arguments For God’s Existence:
http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/
I really don't have enough time to participate in this forum. It's been fun.

[Foxaèr]

What I dislike about atheism is that it requires one to reject reality.

I do not have to read any further to know you are absolutely full of shit. Atheists are more grounded in reality than theists, because there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support the existence of a god. All any theist has is faith, and it is common knowledge that the definition of faith is the veritable lack of evidence.

You can continue making the same claim that your retarded delusion is dependent upon reality, but you are fooling no one except yourself.

I really don't have enough time to participate in this forum.

Good riddance, and hopefully we will never have to deal with your ignorance again.

[Godscreated]

The miracle that matters most to me is that Jesus rose from the dead. How do you explain that a dead man came back to life and 500 eyewitnesses saw Him?

Happens more than you'd think.
Normally due to poor medical assessment.

Do you know the credentials of the Dr that declared Jesus dead?

I do, it was a Roman soldier who's life was on the line, if he got it wrong he would be put to death. The Romans were excellent at crucifixion, they did their jobs quite well, they knew when a person was dead, they had better it was their lives on the line.

If I see someone alive who I had thought was dead I would think they were never dead, not that there had been a miracle.

Jesus spent only a short time on the cross. A death that was supposed to take days.

Wrong, crucifixion could have taken some time, but it was not a long death, the Roman soldiers broke the legs of those being crucified, and they would smother within minutes. They made the death come quickly, they did not want to stay with people for days watching them die, they wanted to leave and have supper.

Since death does not follow immediately on crucifixion, survival after a short period of crucifixion is possible.

No miracle required..job done.

No one survived crucifixion, that was why they were crucified. You peers gave up on this argument long ago, you need to keep up.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No, sorry. It is not circular because:


So you're making an claim of objective fact. As there is no evidence of such an occurance, it is not circular to dismiss it. Actually it's common sense.

In fact, reading through your posts, it seems that you're the one posting a lot of circular arguments.

That said, I find the term 'anti-supernaturalism' odd. It presumes that the 'supernatural' (never heard a consensual definition on this term) is a viable idea worthy of active debate. It's not until evidence comes forward that allows us to test and re-test the claims to provide verifiable (no repeatable) data sets. To me its just hokum.

What I dislike about atheism is that it requires one to reject reality.

And right off the bat you've made an incorrect assertion. Atheism makes no claims about 'reality' at all. show me where you've taken this from so I can debunk it.

As an aside, it's good to see you owning up to letting your personal preferences regarding your biases against a label cloud your judgement. It's something we rarely see from theists these days.

You have to deny history. You have to deny that God acts in this world today.

EVIDENCE dear.

Just because you believe that x happens doesn't mean that x thus does indeed happen.

You see, it's quite easy, atheism is a position on a god or gods, namely a lack of belief resulting from a lack of evidence.

Pragmatism, dear, pragmatism. Show us the evidence, let it hold up to scrutiny, then we'll have a discussion about denial.

You have to deny that science has limits.

I don't even know what you're referring to here? I'm going to guess (so correct me if i'm wrong) that you're saying this because of your bias mentioned above (^^). It almost goes without saying that this point is moot thanks to its own irrelevance.

Science explains the physical reality we currently inhabit. There is no evidence (again) that anything beyond the physical reality exists aside anecdote and personal faith that it is so.

So begin by admitting that your beliefs are not based on factual evidence and we can have an honest and open discussion. Otherwise you're simply undermining your own position dear chap

You have to have faith that you cannot know truth. You have to believe everything is relative. You have to start with the assumption of skepticism of things that are common sense and logical. You have to believe that this incredibly complex universe is just an accident. This is totally irrational. It is as if atheists start with a conclusion that God does not exist, and then work backward to make reality fit their conclusion.

I'll chalk this above paragraph down to that personal bias again.

But FWIW, skepticism is a virtue. Approaching things with the attitude of "ok, what's the context of this claim, and what is it trying to say? What do we get when we reduce it down to is base elements and examine the construction of the claim" is common sense to anyone attempting to forge a path to the truth.

"I believe it because it agrees with me" is the antithesis to this position, which sadly to say, is the current position you adhere to.

If Jesus did not exist, there would have been multiple people would would object and set the record straight. No one ever did. The early Church fathers like Irenaeus loved to stamp out heresy. They would have jumped on this with a vengeance. This "Jesus is a myth" myth started in the 1800's. It is not like the Christians didn't have enough time to refute Christ's existence. It would have been refuted by the second century.

Fallacy of argumentum ad populum, as well as a fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

Just because something was held as 'right' for 1800 years by a number of people both in the past and today doesn't mean it is thus right.

Common sense, please, and less fallacies. I'd throw a fallacy of equivocation in there too as it appears you're comparing societal methods of evidence analysis 1800 years ago to the technological wonderland (comparative) that exists today.

If we'd continued for 1800 years without advancing one iota technologically then chances are nobody would even know about this Jesus character outside of the middle east, Western Asia and the Mediterranean. But i'll let that one slide because that will begin another debate about the shaky (at best) evidence that exists for the existence of a Jewish man who really was the son of a very localised deity (nay, the deity itself).

This is a web site I like. http://www.strangenotions.com/jesus-existed/
20 Arguments For God’s Existence:
http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/
I really don't have enough time to participate in this forum. It's been fun.

So long, farewell...you know the song. I also didn't see a reply to my highlighting of the fact you were using circular reasoning to justify your claims, but whatever.

But FWIW, arguments aren't evidence