No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[Mister Agenda]

This thread is a huge thank you to all non Christians who support us Christians (and possibly all theists) by constantly banging on about there not being any verifiable evidence of God.

No matter how many times you say it, there are still people out there with other idiotic ideas about there being verifiable evidence.

So thanks a lot guys, your support it very much appreciated!

I've never had an argument with simple faith because it doesn't present an argument. It's the Christians who think anyone who isn't convinced by their killer argument is either an idiot or lying about it that gripe me.

Say what you want about knowingly believing something you acknowledge there's no evidence for that would convince a reasonably skeptical person; it's the most honest and rational position a Christian can take with integrity and still BE a Christian. And there are a lot like that in RL, it's rare for them to bother with forums that are about questioning religious belief.

[fr0d0]

I'm not quite following you... all I basically said was that you've stated that miracles are objectively a natural thing. Therefore, it doesn't matter what my "explanation as a non-believer" might be, because whatever the *true* explanation is will be reducible to natural processes, according to you. This means that asking how exactly water gets turned to wine and why humanity hasn't stumbled onto such a process a rather fitting couple of questions relative to your stance on miracles.

I'm saying miracles have to be ambiguous or they would disprove God.

The only real thing is faith, and the rational position. See Jesus affirming this all of the time. If you believe because you see it, then your faith is pretty worthless, and your potential to act because you understand why you believe is severely limited.

[Whateverist]

I'm saying miracles have to be ambiguous or they would disprove God.

The only real thing is faith, and the rational position.

I understand that but what I don't get is why attach faith to the bible rather than God directly? Is it because you don't think God would stand by and let people put together a book like the bible if it weren't correct? Maybe He doesn't even recognize he bible as pertaining to Him at all? Perhaps He has a relationship with some Christians but just doesn't understand their preoccupation with that book. Maybe he thinks, "oh well, whatever floats their boats".

[fr0d0]

I hold the bible as potentially errant. I don't respect it as divine in any way, only a record of the divine.
People decided what bits were the most accurate. Other bits were jettisoned.

Maybe he does disagree with it. I'm open to it being improved.

[Bad Writer]

It would have to be worth improving first.

[FallentoReason]

I'm not quite following you... all I basically said was that you've stated that miracles are objectively a natural thing. Therefore, it doesn't matter what my "explanation as a non-believer" might be, because whatever the *true* explanation is will be reducible to natural processes, according to you. This means that asking how exactly water gets turned to wine and why humanity hasn't stumbled onto such a process a rather fitting couple of questions relative to your stance on miracles.

I'm saying miracles have to be ambiguous or they would disprove God.

Natural processes are anything but ambiguous. Does this mean God is now disproved, or will you be forced to go back to the traditional view of miracles

On a similar topic, how is it that the supernatural acts exclusively naturally? Causal relations would tell me that *somewhere* the supernatural action turned natural. Care to give an account of this phenomenon?

The only real thing is faith, and the rational position. See Jesus affirming this all of the time. If you believe because you see it, then your faith is pretty worthless, and your potential to act because you understand why you believe is severely limited.

God playing hide and seek is why faith amongst the human race is lacking. Consequently, God's hide and seek game is why souls by the billions are being dumped into "hell", whatever it might be. If you're willing to accept the current scenario just so that you have an excuse for your unjustified faith.. well, I dunno, I'd be speechless.

[Strongbad]

This thread is a huge thank you to all non Christians who support us Christians (and possibly all theists) by constantly banging on about there not being any verifiable evidence of God.

No matter how many times you say it, there are still people out there with otherwise idiotic ideas about there being verifiable evidence.

So thanks a lot guys, your support it very much appreciated!

Hmmm...if "evidence" is "verifiable", then it is simply "evidence". Please explain the difference between "non-verifiable evidence" and "speculation".

[Jackalope]

How would you explain water into wine as a non believer?

To me, I might suggest that the onlookers senses were fooled by some kind of mind games.

I have an alternate explanation.

"Probably never happened."

[fr0d0]

I'm saying miracles have to be ambiguous or they would disprove God.

Natural processes are anything but ambiguous. Does this mean God is now disproved, or will you be forced to go back to the traditional view of miracles

On a similar topic, how is it that the supernatural acts exclusively naturally? Causal relations would tell me that *somewhere* the supernatural action turned natural. Care to give an account of this phenomenon?

I almost can't believe you're serious. Almost

Supernatural phenomenon always appear to be natural, unless you can suggest how they couldn't be. Like you correctly said, we'd have to discover the water into wine trick.

God is continually fine tuning. To us stuff just happens. On it's own.

We can't /know it's supernatural, that's down to interpretation. To me, everything is moulded by God. Not that I need to take anything at all from nature and science. Those are sacrosanct. I just have a perspective of God's will/ God interacting.

The supernatural never acts naturally. That's not what I'm saying. Supernatural events occur and have to be indistinguishable from natural events, or they couldn't be supernatural. If we can see a process outside nature, that process becomes nature.

[FallentoReason]

Natural processes are anything but ambiguous. Does this mean God is now disproved, or will you be forced to go back to the traditional view of miracles

On a similar topic, how is it that the supernatural acts exclusively naturally? Causal relations would tell me that *somewhere* the supernatural action turned natural. Care to give an account of this phenomenon?

I almost can't believe you're serious. Almost

Supernatural phenomenon always appear to be natural, unless you can suggest how they couldn't be. Like you correctly said, we'd have to discover the water into wine trick.

God is continually fine tuning. To us stuff just happens. On it's own.

We can't /know it's supernatural, that's down to interpretation. To me, everything is moulded by God. Not that I need to take anything at all from nature and science. Those are sacrosanct. I just have a perspective of God's will/ God interacting.

The supernatural never acts naturally. That's not what I'm saying. Supernatural events occur and have to be indistinguishable from natural events, or they couldn't be supernatural. If we can see a process outside nature, that process becomes nature.

I think I can almost grasp what you're saying. My brain is fried from doing 2 hours of calc... so bear with me :p

Let me ask you this: is my heater producing a miraculous event by turning cold air to hot air? I'm going to jump the gun and assume the answer to be "no". Why? Well, I'm guessing because the event wasn't initiated by anything divine. As a side note, this non-miraculous event can be fully analysed in terms of physics. This analysis in turn would be able to pin-point some sort of "smoking gun" from where the event was first caused to happen. Specifically speaking, it might be the input of the electrical current into the heater, thus initiating a series of causal relations resulting in the transformation of cold air to hot air.

Now, for events that *are* miraculous, that *were* initiated by a divine entity... well, what would make you think in the first place it really was a miracle? From the above I've gathered that you definitely think a miracle can be reduced to natural phenomena because essentially the supernatural is indistinguishable from the natural. Therefore, it seems to me that an analysis of it can be such that we find that nature hasn't been violated by anything supernatural, therefore a completely natural explanation is possible just like it's possible for the heater. This is why it makes sense [to me] that you would agree that there's presumably a method for turning water to wine. But if so far we're in agreement, then effectively, you've removed all potential explanatory power for your religion. Let me illustrate:

>Jesus was a *chemist*. He knew how to turn water to wine.
>I'm a miracle worker because I can turn cold air into hot air.

A "miracle" is a trivial definition for a certain *explainable* event which for some *unknown* reason has been attributed to the divine.

Why not say that Jesus was a chemist and I'm god with heating powers? Explanatory power for the supernatural is out the window.