Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Esquilax]

You mean to say that everything you believe has been verified by the scientific method? Has your wife's love has been demonstrated through instruments or have you used logic to interpret the evidence?

Ah, but that's a red herring; emotions are primarily subjective things, expressed through actions, but immaterial nonetheless. And there's a metric that comes along with accepting any kind of claim, too; my wife saying she loves me comes up against evidence, the same as any other claim. For example, to begin with the claim is relatively mundane, and thus doesn't demand too much credulity. I can also gauge her reactions to being around me, her actions in general, or even hook her up to machines and monitor her brain activity if I really wanted to.

But when you're talking about this god claim, you aren't talking about a subjective thing. You're making a claim about the existence of something that is objective, outside of mere sense perception, and therefore requires actual demonstrable evidence. Besides that, the claim is an extraordinary one, and thus requires evidence at all to afford belief.

That's all we're doing in this argument for God. We have realized certain truths, such as the probability that all actions need causes (inductively speaking), and we let them lead us to conclusions.

Did those conclusions occur to you before or after you read the bible?

And that's leaving off a really important point; you're talking about induction there, and there's a reason that science generally doesn't trust induction. It can lead you wrong a lot. I remind you, there was a time when "realizing certain truths" included that the Earth looked flat, and that led people to the conclusion that it was. Induction and inference are great heuristics that guide us through life pretty well on the whole, but they do come up with false conclusions when applied to larger scale notions, because it is a process that developed through evolution; it's helpful for personal issues, but once we get to the scale of, say, landmasses and planets and universes, it's not equipped to deal with that.

That's why we have a rigorous scientific method, to weed out the false conclusions one might infer.

You're right, this argument is not enough to believe in God. But it is enough to compel us to seek Him, if we are willing. My belief is not confirmed by science, but by experience.

Equally, there are those of us who have sought and found, via our own experience, the opposite. Only one of these propositions can be true: how do we find out?

Well, that's what science is for.

When I developed a relationship with Jesus, my life changed completely. I've seen friends' lives changed too. I've seen bigots become lovers. I've seen drug addicts become leaders. I've seen criminals turned into citizens. I've seen miserable rich people become joyous missionaries.

Ignoring, of course, the bigots and criminals and etc etc that are driven by their religion...

You can tell a tree by its fruit. We know the Spirit of God exists by what He produces within us.

But only if he produces good things within you, right? It doesn't count if the spirit of god produces... say, the Westboro Baptist church?

This changeless being is the first efficient cause, meaning nothing around it/him is changing yet. There is no matter. This is step one, before anything exists at all, in our universe or preceding universes! Therefore anything the being creates would be fully grasped by its/his mind. There is nothing it/he cannot comprehend, because it/he is the first thing that's not nothing. While we have no control over our building blocks, it/he invents the blocks themselves.

And, see, now we're back on pure invention. Fine, I can play that game too: the creator had never created anything before, and since creation is complex and it had no practice, it sucked at it, and created a bad universe. The experience so soured the creator (especially after that whole Adam and Eve thing) that it never tried again.

See how there's exactly as much evidence for what I just wrote as for what you did? How is it that you believe your claim, but you won't believe mine?

And again, there must be a first thing that's not nothing unless we wish to do the irrational--break causal chains or go to infinity.

Why is infinity impossible?

So you can dispute causation or infinity, but it doesn't seem that the "incompetent first efficient cause" objection holds any water.

Only if I'm willing to go along with what you've asserted without evidence above. I am not. Why would I be?

Yet the claim is not vital to my argument. If I can logically demonstrate the existence of a creator, he is obviously creative enough to make us... because here we are. In my effort to prove that a steam engine must have had a designer, I need not track the engineer down and ask for his credentials.

And my point in bringing it up wasn't to trip you up, it was to maybe lead you away from unfounded assertions and toward the path of supporting your claims with data. It seems that this has failed.

Why do you give our creator motives so unlike and beneath our own?

I could ask you the same question in reverse.

If it/he created us, it/he would be similar, yet greater.

Not if he's just doing it for a food source. You haven't discounted that, you just dismissed it. That's not an argument.

It/he must also know love, peace and patience.

Or, those could be emergent properties of conscious entities with free will.

If it/he sought only suffering, the world would be a much more terrible place.

Okay, get your story straight: is the world a good place, or is it a wicked, sinful one?

But since the creator knows both love and torture, which do you think he would choose? Which is more logical--to care for and nurture your creation or to erase all the hard work you put into it?

I don't know, because I'm not the one making any assumptions here. You can't demonstrate that a creator exists, so you can't know anything about its properties, abilities or motives, and yet you're ascribing it all these things, and dismissing the ones that don't line up with your presuppositions about it out of hand. I'm asking why?

Again, you seem very willing to tell us what you believe, but when asked about the information you used to form your beliefs, or even shown how you haven't provided any of that in the first place, instead of telling us you just resort to telling us more of what you believe.

How did you come to these conclusions? What externally verifiable information did you use? If there isn't any, how can any of us be rationally justified in believing you?

[Undeceived]

And that's leaving off a really important point; you're talking about induction there, and there's a reason that science generally doesn't trust induction. It can lead you wrong a lot. I remind you, there was a time when "realizing certain truths" included that the Earth looked flat, and that led people to the conclusion that it was. Induction and inference are great heuristics that guide us through life pretty well on the whole, but they do come up with false conclusions when applied to larger scale notions, because it is a process that developed through evolution; it's helpful for personal issues, but once we get to the scale of, say, landmasses and planets and universes, it's not equipped to deal with that.

Science is not fond of induction. But scientists are not going to let the absence of deduction prohibit them from making conclusions. Say that I am looking for a purple swan. I have searched the world over for a purple swan, and have yet to find one. Deductively, my experiment will lie incomplete. Inductively, I conclude that in all likelihood, purple swans do not exist. In the same way, we inductively say that all actions have causes, because we have yet to find otherwise. If we rule out induction, the jury is out and we cannot even discuss cause and effect. But that would be ludicrous. Even scientific LAWS are not 100% verified, because we have not tested them in every part of the universe—say, next to black holes or between dimensions. This is why induction is even more crucial when discussing “larger scale notions.” There is simply not enough data. It’s interesting for you to be so critical of induction, because induction is the only reasoning you have for concluding there is no God. Incomplete deduction = induction. They are flip sides of the same coin. And I just defended induction for you. You’re welcome.

But only if he produces good things within you, right? It doesn't count if the spirit of god produces... say, the Westboro Baptist church?

We know the Spirit of God by its fruit. Any love, peace, faithfulness, ect. anywhere at all is a result of God. If there is bigotry in the Westboro Baptist church, it came from men's hearts. (I address love more thoroughly below.)

Why is infinity impossible?

Infinity is not impossible. Just know that if you are willing to accept it is an answer, you are no less radical than if you accept God as an answer.

Not if he's just doing it for a food source. You haven't discounted that, you just dismissed it. That's not an argument.

If God expels his own energy into the universe, how can he gain anything from feeding on it?

Or, those could be emergent properties of conscious entities with free will.

Love is about thinking outside yourself. God thinks outside of himself first by creating us. We respond to his example by loving others. Without God, there is no reason for your free will to choose love. You are interested in self-preservation. You owe nobody nothing. But I’ll let you confirm this. Give me a logical reason to love that doesn’t in any way benefit the person loving. [I’ll give you a few seconds.] Ok, the wording in that request was bias. The word “logical” always entails the individual. To love selflessly, one must be illogical. Would you, Esquilax, freely act illogically? Your hypothetical creator made you in such a way that you act for self-preservation above all else. If love does not serve you, it is not within your free will. Therefore, it must come from God.

What externally verifiable information did you use? If there isn't any, how can any of us be rationally justified in believing you?

One may see the effects of the wind, but not the wind. All the unanswered questions in the world come together in the shape of God, who answers every one with organized precision.

[StuW]

One may see the effects of the wind, but not the wind. All the unanswered questions in the world come together in the shape of God, who answers every one with organized precision.

Until a someone else does and your gap gets smaller. Wow, Dawkins really was right!

[pocaracas]

OOOhhhhhh, Here is X.
X is the answer to everything.

Scientists don't need to keep working on finding things about nature, because X explains everything.


OTH, Undeceived.... consider some 5000 or 10000 years ago, when the whole concept of god was still in its infancy. How did the people of the time acquire that concept?
Completely trustworthy and unbiased prophets?

[Bad Writer]

Say that I am looking for a purple swan...

But you won't because there's nothing in the history of ever that should ever point you in that direction. Try again with a more appropriate analogy, if you can.

But only if he produces good things within you, right? It doesn't count if the spirit of god produces... say, the Westboro Baptist church?

We know the Spirit of God by its fruit.

So you agree with Esq on this one? Just say that and stop beating around the bush with your masturbatory words; you shouldn't need 50 lines of text to come to your conclusions here.

Now what about the Vessels of Wrath that God has created to shew his righteousness to men? I'm talking about men that are preordained for evil acts. They are preordained by your talking sky daddy, but they are unarguably evil and made on purpose. This is a fruit of god, so apparently he doesn't always produce good.

Another example is how he hardens people's hearts, such as Pharoah's when Moses is trying to explain to him why his people need to be let go. According to the story, Pharoah probably would have been content to release the Israelites after the first couple signs, but God really felt he needed to wreak some havoc in Egypt.

If God expels his own energy into the universe, how can he gain anything from feeding on it?

You tell us. Apparently he needs his creations to give back to him in the form of sacrifice and devotion. According to the Holy Babble, this is pleasing to the Lord. The smell of burning flesh was like catnip for god.

You are interested in self-preservation. You owe nobody nothing.

This still doesn't explain how a person can't have love if there is no god. Oh, right, you read it in a book so it must be true. I once read that the Force binds us all together. That also must be true.

One may see the effects of the wind, but not the wind. All the unanswered questions in the world come together in the shape of God, who answers every one with organized precision.

Observing the effects of wind is not proof of god. It's proof that there's wind. Try again.

[Undeceived]

Now what about the Vessels of Wrath that God has created to shew his righteousness to men?

Was Pharaoh’s heart contrary to Pharaoh's will, or in accordance with it?

Apparently he needs his creations to give back to him in the form of sacrifice and devotion. According to the Holy Babble, this is pleasing to the Lord. The smell of burning flesh was like catnip for god.

"In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor." Genesis 4:3-5

Both sacrifices were outwardly perfect. But God read each of their hearts and accepted the sacrifice of Abel, who gave gratefully, unlike Cain, who was bitter.

"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require." Psalm 40:6

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise." Psalm 51:6

"It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." Hebrews 9:23-26

As these verses indicate, OT sacrifice served as an image by which God's creation could understand the one true sacrifice--Jesus himself. As Abraham told Isaac, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering" (Genesis 22:8).

[Bad Writer]

Was Pharaoh’s heart contrary to Pharaoh's will, or in accordance with it?

Contrary. Exodus makes that abundantly clear since Pharoah is about to let them go, but God keeps hardening his heart. Why are you arguing against this, exactly? Did I stutter when I first mentioned it?

As for the Blood Sacrifice thing...either you're a fucking moron, or you've been duped by your own cherry picking. God requires blood sacrifice, hands down. Every time, all the time. What the hell did Zombie Christ die for then if not to satisfy God's need for Blood Sacrifice for all time and eternity?

If you were a Hebrew living in the time of Mosaic law, I wonder what your punishment would have been if you had sacrificed anything but what Leviticus outlined?

[Undeceived]

Was Pharaoh’s heart contrary to Pharaoh's will, or in accordance with it?

Contrary. Exodus makes that abundantly clear since Pharoah is about to let them go, but God keeps hardening his heart. Why are you arguing against this, exactly? Did I stutter when I first mentioned it?

You mean to say the heart is different from the will? How is it possible for my heart to cause me to do something I don't really want to do? God made Pharaoh the way he was, yes. But Pharaoh was also being himself. The two are not mutually exclusive. Is it not possible to be both within your own will and within God's?

As for the Blood Sacrifice thing...either you're a fucking moron, or you've been duped by your own cherry picking. God requires blood sacrifice, hands down. Every time, all the time. What the hell did Zombie Christ die for then if not to satisfy God's need for Blood Sacrifice for all time and eternity?

The absolution of sins requires punishment for those sins. Jesus took our sins, and then the punishment--death. Blood sacrifice was a way of representing that future reality, and God took pleasure in his glory being revealed that way. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God needs our sacrifices.

[Minimalist]

Contrary. Exodus makes that abundantly clear since Pharoah is about to let them go, but God keeps hardening his heart.

Well, it has nothing to do with any fucking god or any "Hebrews" but there is actually a point in Egyptian history wherein the Pharaoh Ahmose I while chasing the Hyksos out of Egypt ran into a small problem.

Expulsion of the Hyksos in Year 16 of his reign.
Ahmose I slowly drove the Hyksos back to their capital Avaris (location on one of the eastern branches of the Nile in Lower Egypt), once here Ahmose laid siege to the city. Ahmose had troubles of his own with his kingdom, he left the siege of Avaris in the control of his military commanders so that he was free to placate a rebellion in the Theban region. When Ahmose returned to Avaris he found that negotiations had been taking place between the Hyksos and his military commanders ­ the Hyksos were allowed to leave Egypt gracefully in return for surrendering the city (1532 BC).

...However, Ahmose was not going to let his enemy escape so easily ­ the Egyptian army pursued the Hyksos people into southern Palestine to Sharuhen. The city was put under siege by the Egyptians, after three years the Hyksos once more fled this time into Syria. Again the Egyptians followed, but Ahmose finally returned home to Egypt.

http://ib205.tripod.com/ahmose_1_1.html

So centuries later when the garbled tale was edited to suit the needs of a specific band of Judahite nobles they came out with what we now know as the pile of shit called the bible.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Argument from high stakes. My life being on the line doesn't magically make me more qualified to determine if someone is really dead. If I'd have been that soldier, I'd have left the man up a few more days just to make sure. After all, one of the points of crucifixion was to leave victims on display for days as a warning to others. Crucified bodies were usually left to decay. Why would the Romans treat Jesus differently?

No one survived crucifixion, that was why they were crucified.

You can't possibly know this for a fact. It makes no more sense than saying 'no one ever survived the electric chair, that is why they were electrocuted'.

You peers gave up on this argument long ago, you need to keep up.

Maybe it was given up too quickly. You're not making a very good case for the converse. Clearly the execution of Jesus was unusual at least in that he was taken off the cross quickly and entombed instead of being left to rot. Which is exactly what would have had to have happened for it to be even a possibility that he survived.

Jesus is mentioned in the Qu'ran much more often than Mohamed. They believe in the virgin birth and that Jesus will return on the Day of Judgement to defeat the false messiah and bring justice.

However, they don't believe Jesus was killed by the crucifixion, they believe God transformed someone else to look like Jesus who was crucified instead, and Jesus was ascended bodily into heaven.

Interestingly, in the Gospels, there are occasions before and after the crucifixion when people who should know Jesus have trouble recognizing him.

---

I don't do good things because I'm grateful, I do them because it helps others

Why help others? Can you give me a logical reason?

It feels good.