Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Love is a choice? Did you really say that? If it's a choice and i ask you to stop loving your mother for 10 seconds can you do it? You are no more in control of your love than I am. If I point to a woman you've never met before and say fall in love with her right now, then stop loving her after 2 hours, can you do it? What you have control over is your actions, not your love. And I fail to see why even if it's a choice, it'd be superior to godless love?

Edit: ahaha, saw your edit, interesting that you asked me the same question. Nope, i can't, and i won't. Why would i cause grieve to the people i love for someone i hate? I wouldn't do something that would upset the people I love, especially so unnecessarily. Can you do it? Your scenario I mean.

Jesus chose to love you, in spite of all the reasons he had not to. If he is in your heart, you have the power to forgive anyone, and love them too. I'm sorry you have not yet experienced this. When you are ready to meet the One who made you and loves you as you are, let me or any other believer know.

That's very patronizing. You came here to discuss things and I spent time replying and telling you what I think and asked you questions. And all you do after that is to tell me this guy who doesn't exist did things he never did and I don't know any of that. You're not even going to bother to proof your assertions that jesus did what he did. You just want me to swallow it up? You're not even going to reply to my questions? So what you really want is to convert me and earn some brownie points with your fictional god.

Great job.

BTW, I met the one who made me and loves me as I am (why did you emphasize this, do you think I'm unlovable?), she's my mum.

[Minimalist]

You're not even going to bother to proof your assertions that jesus did what he did.

None of them ever do. It's why they can safely be dismissed as crackpots.

[Bad Writer]

You seem to assume that reports of miracles from those who experienced them are too biased to tell the truth. Who could provide better evidence than eyewitnesses?

Who? The Romans, the Pharisaic Jews, and any other Gentile nation that might have been a contemporary of that man. The so-called eyewitnesses are too close to be unbiased, so we have to discount their evidence and move on.

BTW, the Vatican requires non-believer doctors to examine the evidence and confirm there is no natural cause for healing.

Unknown causes for healing are observed all the time outside of Church settings. The Vatican's practice of bringing in secular doctors to observe the aftermath of a "miraculous" healing falls apart as evidence due to this simple fact.

Also, who could provide better evidence the apostles who were eyewitnesses to the life and death of Jesus? If anything, they would be the most concerned with accuracy, more so than some outsider. To say otherwise is denying 2000 years of history.

The Bible would have to be a history book for their accounts to be considered historical.

I have been posting about miracles, such as the Resurrection, that I do believe happened.

Saying that something happened doesn't make the occurrence true. If I told you that I rode into work every day on a blue dragon, does that mean I'm telling you the truth? You telling us that there was a resurrection is the same kind of claim as my dragon.

You have to have faith that science will someday understand everything. You have no proof for that. It is an assumption. Science seems to be your religion.

For some, maybe. Science makes no absolute assertions. Could it know everything some day? Possibly. Do we know that for certain? I'm okay with saying that we don't and can't know that.

Science can seem dogmatic in some way, but I assure you that it and religion are very different. While one is concerned with facts and evidence, the other is concerned with fairy tales. Science says not to put faith in its findings, but to try and understand it through reason and logic. The other asks you to put logic aside, and instead to trust your feelings and to put faith in things that aren't seen, to hope for something that you can't know exists.

You seem to be assuming that the laws of nature are a closed system, therefore, nothing can act on it from the outside, so then a violation of natural law is impossible. However, within a theistic framework, natural law is not a closed system; and so a miracle is not a violation of natural law. (New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 663.)
You have no proof that natural law is a closed system.

As far as we can observe it, it is a closed system within this universe. You must first prove that a theistic framework even exists before you can make claim to miracles and how they work. So 1. Prove there is a god 2. Prove there is magic. ...Aaaaaand...Go!

I hope your mind is open enough to realize the things you are assuming, but not so open that your brains fall out.

Telling someone they are assuming something, when, in fact, it's you doing all the assuming (i.e. there is a god, there are miracles, etc.) then you are only projecting your own flaws onto the person that was calling you out on them. If you can own up to mistakes you've made, then the debate will not be so heated.

You have to believe that this incredibly complex universe is just an accident. This is totally irrational.

This the argument from ignorance. For example: you are visiting Disney World,and you see a Japanese family visiting too. You assert that they flew a plane to America from Japan and are tourists. You could be right, but not necessarily. There are a number of things that could actually be the case: they may actually live in America; if they are actually from Japan, they could have taken a boat; you could be mistaken about their heritage, and they are in fact from Taiwan or some other far east country. It's fine if you make assumptions, but you must be prepared for counter-arguments if it's made out of ignorance.

So who created it? It seems common sense that a machine points to its designer and a building points to its architect. You observe a highly ordered universe. Who designed it? It would have to be a preexisting being that did not need to be created and on which all things owe their existence.

This is a continuation of your argument from ignorance. We know that a building has a designer and an architect because of evidence, because of facts, and because we have experience in the creation of buildings.

We see natural things come about all the time: the births of babies, the cooling of magma pools, the pollination of flowers, supernovae, and other such things that can be observed in nature. To assert that there must be a creator is fallacious on so many levels.

Speaking of proving creation wrong, perhaps you should look up Lawrence Krauss, a scientist that can actually explain in details that the common man can understand how a Universe can come from nothing. To further things along, you should also do some reading on Abiogenesis. I'll just spoil the ending right now and tell you that scientists have proven that life could have come about naturally on this planet. They don't know how it happened on earth because no one can recreate the conditions that existed back in earth's early days, but they know for a fact that it's possible.

[Minimalist]

Who? The Romans, the Pharisaic Jews, and any other Gentile nation that might have been a contemporary of that man.

Ancient "miracles" were a dime a dozen.

"In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them.

They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill.

They discussed the matter from different points of view. 'In the one case,' they said, 'the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers.'

And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood."

Tacitus: Histories - 4:81

[Bad Writer]

I like the one in Greek mythology where Prometheus gets his liver eaten every night. It must have happened.

[Minimalist]

Richard Carrier's Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...kooks.html

We all have read the tales told of Jesus in the Gospels, but few people really have a good idea of their context. Yet it is quite enlightening to examine them against the background of the time and place in which they were written, and my goal here is to help you do just that. There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them. Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, and this leads us to an important fact: when the Gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a small minority. Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were much more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously.

Sad to say the "gullible and credulous" are still with us in great numbers.

[Esquilax]

You seem to assume that reports of miracles from those who experienced them are too biased to tell the truth. Who could provide better evidence than eyewitnesses?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the issue here is that you already know that eyewitness accounts of miracle claims aren't worth anything: after all, you discount the accounts of miracles from all other gods but your own, don't you? Or are you a pantheist who believes in all the gods? After all, they all have miracle claims.

Taking eyewitness miracle claims as true just puts you in the position of having to believe every crackpot claim ever; there are people alive today who'll tell you about their experiences with Bast, the Egyptian cat headed god. There are people who'll swear up and down they've been abducted by aliens. Do you believe them? They're eyewitnesses!

BTW, the Vatican requires non-believer doctors to examine the evidence and confirm there is no natural cause for healing.

I think you've shaped the language a bit, there.What you mean is no known cause for the healing, and that's not the same thing as a miraculous cause. What you're trying to have us believe is that if doctors- secular doctors - can't find the answer, then the idea that it was a miracle event is logical and, in fact, proven. That's an argument from ignorance: nobody else has an answer, and therefore it must be a miracle.

Also, who could provide better evidence the apostles who were eyewitnesses to the life and death of Jesus? If anything, they would be the most concerned with accuracy, more so than some outsider. To say otherwise is denying 2000 years of history.

If you actually go and look, you'll see that there's no extra-biblical accounts of Jesus that are contemporary with his supposed existence. At all. By appealing to the apostles, you're essentially appealing to circular reasoning: the book says he exists and I know he exists because the authors of the book wouldn't lie and the book says he existed...

I have been posting about miracles, such as the Resurrection, that I do believe happened. None of the responses, such as "Jesus didn't really die. He never existed. The Roman soldiers were bribed, etc are unproved conjectures that go against 2000 years of history, so then atheists here deny that one can know history.

Jesus is just unproven conjecture too, unless you can provide a historical source unconnected to the bible that even mentions him.

You have to have faith that science will someday understand everything. You have no proof for that. It is an assumption. Science seems to be your religion.

And you know that how? You know what I'm thinking?

I have knowledge and evidence that science is a self-correcting, honest and rational means by which we can discern truthful things about the universe. Knowing everything isn't even on the cards, since absolute knowledge isn't a useful concept, in fact it's almost an impossible one.

But please, keep doing what you're doing: the implication is that being a religion is a bad thing. Or, you're a hypocrite, and implying that being a religion is a bad thing only when it's applied to things that aren't your religion...

You seem to be assuming that the laws of nature are a closed system, therefore, nothing can act on it from the outside, so then a violation of natural law is impossible. However, within a theistic framework, natural law is not a closed system; and so a miracle is not a violation of natural law. (New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 663.)
You have no proof that natural law is a closed system.

And you have no proof of any extra-universal will reaching into the universe and altering them. The time to believe that natural law isn't a closed system is when there's evidence of something beyond it happening. Do you have any of that? Evidence, that can be tested, falsified, or verified?

Not just the writings of long dead desert tribesmen of questionable veracity recounting stories of a man they were never around to see in the first place?

I hope your mind is open enough to realize the things you are assuming, but not so open that your brains fall out.

Don't ascribe me motivations or thoughts. It's a bad look. You don't know me, you absolutely don't have the right to tell me what I think.

So who created it?

Whoa, let's not start poisoning the well this early, shall we?

It seems common sense that a machine points to its designer and a building points to its architect.

Do you know how we recognize design? No, really: have you thought about the processes your brain goes through to do that?

Let me tell you: you recognize design, like you recognize anything else, through contrast and comparison. You recognize design because you can compare it to natural things and see the difference, just as a person who has only experienced being cold all his life has no inherent idea of what warmth is.

In terms of the universe, you absolutely can't make that comparison, because first of all, you don't have another universe to compare it to.

You observe a highly ordered universe.

I observe a highly chaotic universe that is mostly hostile to life, constantly exploding, crushing other parts of itself, on fire, deadly cold, and filled with radiation. I also observe some theists that are willing to ignore this entirely because it doesn't fit into their narrative, regardless of the actual facts.

Who designed it? It would have to be a preexisting being that did not need to be created and on which all things owe their existence.

How do you intend to demonstrate this need? Because that's what you need to do. Just asserting it means nothing. I can assert anything I like, that doesn't make it true.

Oh, and also, how do you intend to prove that this being is the specific god that you believe in, and not anything else? Because it could be an infinity of different things.

[BettyG]

Me: You seem to assume that reports of miracles from those who experienced them are too biased to tell the truth. Who could provide better evidence than eyewitnesses?
To BadWriterSparty:
BadWriterSparty: Who? The Romans, the Pharisaic Jews, and any other Gentile nation that might have been a contemporary of that man. The so-called eyewitnesses are too close to be unbiased, so we have to discount their evidence and move on.

Tacitus (55-120 AD, Annuls), Lucian of Samosata (later half of 1st century, Suetonius (Life of Claidius, 25.4), Pliny the Younger (112 AD), Thallus (52 AD quotes from Julius Africanus’ Chronography), Phlegon (quotes from Julius Africanus’ Chronicles), Mara Bar-Serapion (after 70 AD) all are non-Christian sources that, though they are biased against Christianity, never deny that Jesus existed. You can find these quotes in Josh McDowell’s book, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

Check out "Ancient Non-Christian Evidence for Jesus Christ" - pt.2 at http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/histor...ljesus.htm
The Historical Jesus, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, Gary R. Habermas.

Me: Also, who could provide better evidence the apostles who were eyewitnesses to the life and death of Jesus? If anything, they would be the most concerned with accuracy, more so than some outsider. To say otherwise is denying 2000 years of history.

You: The Bible would have to be a history book for their accounts to be considered historical.

The New Testament has tons of historical facts that have been confirmed by archiological evidence.
For example, Luke in Acts 18:12, calls Gallio “Proconsul”, this was questioned by critical scholars but Luke was proven correct. When the Delphi inscription was found it verified some very specific history which before had been questioned. On the inscription it read:
“As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia”[1]

Me: You have to have faith that science will someday understand everything. You have no proof for that. It is an assumption. Science seems to be your religion.

You For some, maybe. Science makes no absolute assertions. Could it know everything some day? Possibly. Do we know that for certain? I'm okay with saying that we don't and can't know that.
Science can seem dogmatic in some way, but I assure you that it and religion are very different. While one is concerned with facts and evidence, the other is concerned with fairy tales. Science says not to put faith in its findings, but to try and understand it through reason and logic. The other asks you to put logic aside, and instead to trust your feelings and to put faith in things that aren't seen, to hope for something that you can't know exists.

God would not ask me to accept a relationship with Him on blind faith. Faith, in the Catholic view, is based on reason. Our separated brethern aren't always in agreement with that, namely young earth believers.
You believe in the fairy tale. It takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist.

Me: You seem to be assuming that the laws of nature are a closed system, therefore, nothing can act on it from the outside, so then a violation of natural law is impossible. However, within a theistic framework, natural law is not a closed system; and so a miracle is not a violation of natural law. (New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, p. 663.)
You have no proof that natural law is a closed system.
You: As far as we can observe it, it is a closed system within this universe. You must first prove that a theistic framework even exists before you can make claim to miracles and how they work. So 1. Prove there is a god 2. Prove there is magic. ...Aaaaaand...Go!

Scientists examine the facts that best fits the explanation before they come to a theory. My theory that God exists is a better explanation of the evidence than yours is. Yours is a circular argument that says, "If miracles are impossible, then the report of any miraculous event must be false, and thererefore, miracles are impossible." My theory explains the things that are beyond nature, while you beleive in the fairy tale that science will eventually explain it. These things are not magic. God intervened.

Me: So who created it? It seems common sense that a machine points to its designer and a building points to its architect. You observe a highly ordered universe. Who designed it? It would have to be a preexisting being that did not need to be created and on which all things owe their existence.

Yiou: "Speaking of proving creation wrong, perhaps you should look up Lawrence Krauss, a scientist that can actually explain in details that the common man can understand how a Universe can come from nothing. To further things along, you should also do some reading on Abiogenesis. I'll just spoil the ending right now and tell you that scientists have proven that life could have come about naturally on this planet. They don't know how it happened on earth because no one can recreate the conditions that existed back in earth's early days, but they know for a fact that it's possible.

Check out a critque of Lawrence Krauss at http://www.reasons.org/articles/universe...ook-part-1 and http://www.reasons.org/articles/universe...ook-part-2

Throughout "A Universe from Nothing" Krauss keeps changing his definition of “nothing.” Almost all his definitions are not really nothings but actual “some things.” Who made the Higgs particle? Who made the laws of nature that make the Higgs particle do what it did?

BTW: I consider this to be a friendly dialogue about these issues, not a heated argument. No hard feelings here at all.

[pocaracas]

You know that the Jesus that people acknowledge that may have existed is not the Jesus that christians nowadays worship. I mean, it may have been the same person, but not necessarily, the same feats, the same origin, the same divinity.
According to Bart Ehrman, the Jesus that people followed in the first century was a prophet, a teacher of scripture.... Later, someone glued onto this figure a few earlier prophesies about a messiah... the virgin birth would be one of them... and after some time (~300 years, or some 6 to 9 generations) the view currently held arose.

About Krauss's nothing... it is a tentative explanation for the origin of our Universe. A Universe from the apparent nothingness. A nothingness which is composed of virtual quantum particles and fields.
You may ask, then, where did these fields and particles come from?
I may ask, then, where did your god come from?

To both questions, the "they were always there" may apply.

However, we have a CERN which attests that these fields exist..... whereas your (or anyone else's) god is remarkably empty of evidence for its existence outside the minds of believers like you.

[Bad Writer]

Tacitus (55-120 AD, Annuls), Lucian of Samosata (later half of 1st century, Suetonius (Life of Claidius, 25.4), Pliny the Younger (112 AD), Thallus (52 AD quotes from Julius Africanus’ Chronography), Phlegon (quotes from Julius Africanus’ Chronicles), Mara Bar-Serapion (after 70 AD) all are non-Christian sources that, though they are biased against Christianity, never deny that Jesus existed. You can find these quotes in Josh McDowell’s book, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

How exactly is a person that lived 20-90 years following the death of someone supposed to be a contemporary?

The Bible would have to be a history book for their accounts to be considered historical.

The New Testament has tons of historical facts that have been confirmed by archiological evidence.

So does "The Da Vinci Code". Does that make this a factual book?

God would not ask me to accept a relationship with Him on blind faith.

Then why does he?

Faith, in the Catholic view, is based on reason.

Please don't lie to me.

My theory that God exists is a better explanation of the evidence than yours is. Yours is a circular argument that says, "If miracles are impossible, then the report of any miraculous event must be false, and thererefore, miracles are impossible."

I stopped taking you seriously once you started putting words in my mouth.