Can't prove the supernatural God

[Foxaèr]

Lame.

[Angrboda]

3. I don't disagree with you comments on probability. However, I still contend that context and timing have weight and, depending on the circumstances, they can make heretofore unknown naturalistic causes less and less likely until a potential naturalistic cause approaches 0%.  (see my example from Matthew 9)

Do you have an example of such a miracle that doesn't come from the bible? We see modern day faith healers superficially exhibiting timing and context and such, yet digging into the actual circumstances, one finds that the appearance is largely deceptive. If you can't rule out deception (or simple mistake), then how does context realistically relate to estimated probability?

[SteveII]

Mostly straw men and unsupported opinions. In your middle paragraph (bold), setting aside the fact that I don't know how the phrase "most likely" fits into your thesis, how would you 'know ' that no events had supernatural causes? The only way you could know that is if supernatural causes were not possible. If that is your reasoning, then you are arguing in a circle.

Talk about straw men...


I'm not talking about all causes, objects, and effects...I am only talking about known ones. Of the things we know, all are natural and none are supernatural. Because of that, it is reasonable to expect that anything that occurs in nature has a natural cause, and it is not reasonable to posit or believe in causes that are supernatural until the supernatural can be demonstrated with evidence.


Furthermore, it is not sufficient to dismiss my entire post as "straw men and unsupported opinions" without actually addressing any of it. If I have misrepresented you or the Bible, you should be able to explain how (like I did at the front of this post). If I've said something that isn't supported by evidence, what was it? Your reply looks more like a cop-out than a rebuttal.

I will say that it is very reasonable to look for a natural explanation before positing a miracle happened since our experience does support that that is the case in almost all events. 

Let's cut to the chase. You think the description of miracles in the NT is untrue and therefore provide no support for the existence of miracles. Can you prove them to be untrue? No, you can give reasons why you think so. I think there are reasons to believe that it is true, so I think miracles happen. 

So, why would I bring them up instead of some modern example? As I said above to Mister Agenda, I think the modern claims of miracles are over done. That is not to say I think that they do not happen. The miracles of the NT were of a different type. These were big, purposeful, witnessed, had theological significance. We do not see these types of miracles anymore. This is also a reason I am not going to argue if so and so's brain tumor disappeared as a result of supernatural intervention. These types are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) theological significance.

[SteveII]

3. I don't disagree with you comments on probability. However, I still contend that context and timing have weight and, depending on the circumstances, they can make heretofore unknown naturalistic causes less and less likely until a potential naturalistic cause approaches 0%.  (see my example from Matthew 9)

Do you have an example of such a miracle that doesn't come from the bible?  We see modern day faith healers superficially exhibiting timing and context and such, yet digging into the actual circumstances, one finds that the appearance is largely deceptive.  If you can't rule out deception (or simple mistake), then how does context realistically relate to estimated probability?

Good question. I touched on this in the post above to Redbeard. 

Edited somewhat - Regarding the NT, these were big, purposeful (had context, taught lessons, proved a point), witnessed (many by large groups), and had theological significance (backed up Jesus' claim to be God, means of redemption, . We do not see these types of miracles anymore. This is also a reason I am not going to argue if so and so's brain tumor disappeared as a result of supernatural intervention. These types are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) theological significance. 

You asked for an example. I have spoken before about my brother-in-laws brain tumor as a teenager. Was having seizures. Scans found tumor. He was being prepped for brain surgery and they scanned to get the latest mapping for the operation. No tumor. The doctor has no explanation and the family and friends believe it was a miracle (to give further context, my father-in-law was a minister in a local church so there was a lot of people involved and a lot of people who cared). Since my worldview contains the supernatural, the NT explains the context of what we can expect if we pray for healing, and there seems to be no natural causes, I believe I am justified in agreeing with them. Can I say 100%? No. 

There are certainly people who cheat and steal and lie for various reasons. If these people use fake miracles to achieve their goal it is because they are taking advantage of the fact people are already prepared to believe in them. I don't think this is an argument against the possibility, just a reason to be extremely cautious of claims.

[Mister Agenda]

I will say that it is very reasonable to look for a natural explanation before positing a miracle happened since our experience does support that that is the case in almost all events. 

Let's cut to the chase. You think the description of miracles in the NT is untrue and therefore provide no support for the existence of miracles. Can you prove them to be untrue? No, you can give reasons why you think so. I think there are reasons to believe that it is true, so I think miracles happen. 

So, why would I bring them up instead of some modern example? As I said above to Mister Agenda, I think the modern claims of miracles are over done. That is not to say I think that they do not happen. The miracles of the NT were of a different type. These were big, purposeful, witnessed, had theological significance. We do not see these types of miracles anymore. This is also a reason I am not going to argue if so and so's brain tumor disappeared as a result of supernatural intervention. These types are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) theological significance.

They were big, purposeful, witnessed, and had theological significance. According to the stories about them.

The same can be said about the miracles attributed to Krishna (and still being attributed to him today).

These kinds of stories are readily available and widely believed about all sorts of figures.

The ancient world was a place where miracles were always happening just the next town over, and you knew that because some traveler told you a story about it, and you had no clue why you shouldn't take it at face value. If it was a good enough story, you'd tell someone else.

If you were a devout Hindu who revered Krishna, what would be different about your claims besides the details?

[Mister Agenda]

You asked for an example. I have spoken before about my brother-in-laws brain tumor as a teenager. Was having seizures. Scans found tumor. He was being prepped for brain surgery and they scanned to get the latest mapping for the operation. No tumor. The doctor has no explanation and the family and friends believe it was a miracle (to give further context, my father-in-law was a minister in a local church so there was a lot of people involved and a lot of people who cared). Since my worldview contains the supernatural, the NT explains the context of what we can expect if we pray for healing, and there seems to be no natural causes, I believe I am justified in agreeing with them. Can I say 100%? No. 

There are certainly people who cheat and steal and lie for various reasons. If these people use fake miracles to achieve their goal it is because they are taking advantage of the fact people are already prepared to believe in them. I don't think this is an argument against the possibility, just a reason to be extremely cautious of claims.

Brain tumors don't seem to be a respecter of religion when it comes to who they go into remission for. If Christians were more likely to have brain tumors go into remission than non-believers or members of other religions that don't worship Yahweh; that would be evidence of something weird going on, at least. And why should the number of people who pray matter?

That said, I'm glad of your brother-in-law's good fortune. I'm for as many brain tumor remissions as possible, and don't wish a tumor of any kind on anyone. But brain tumors going into remission is just one of those things brain tumors do sometimes. Not sure how you established that the cause being unknown justifies concluding that it was supernatural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneou..._in_cancer

I think if you're even reasonably skeptical of miracle claims, not one stands up to scrutiny. That doesn't mean they don't happen, but I don't think you can justify the claim that they do. Fraud is just one example of false miracles, there's also honest misperception, uninformed interpretation, confirmation bias, pareidolia, and more.

[Angrboda]

Do you have an example of such a miracle that doesn't come from the bible?  We see modern day faith healers superficially exhibiting timing and context and such, yet digging into the actual circumstances, one finds that the appearance is largely deceptive.  If you can't rule out deception (or simple mistake), then how does context realistically relate to estimated probability?

Good question. I touched on this in the post above to Redbeard. 

Edited somewhat - Regarding the NT, these were big, purposeful (had context, taught lessons, proved a point), witnessed (many by large groups), and had theological significance (backed up Jesus' claim to be God, means of redemption, . We do not see these types of miracles anymore. This is also a reason I am not going to argue if so and so's brain tumor disappeared as a result of supernatural intervention. These types are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) theological significance. 

You asked for an example. I have spoken before about my brother-in-laws brain tumor as a teenager. Was having seizures. Scans found tumor. He was being prepped for brain surgery and they scanned to get the latest mapping for the operation. No tumor. The doctor has no explanation and the family and friends believe it was a miracle (to give further context, my father-in-law was a minister in a local church so there was a lot of people involved and a lot of people who cared). Since my worldview contains the supernatural, the NT explains the context of what we can expect if we pray for healing, and there seems to be no natural causes, I believe I am justified in agreeing with them. Can I say 100%? No. 

Thank you for the example. I share some of Mister Agenda's reservations, but I have a different question along the lines we were discussing before. How does this relate to the factors which you suggested we should turn to for assessment of the likelihood of a miracle, namely context and, for lack of a better term, cueing (saying "You are healed!" and the person suddenly being healed). The NT is context for how prayer can heal, but it's a very distant context and there appears to be no such cueing in your brother-in-law's case. Wouldn't that reduce your assessment of the prospect of it being a miracle correspondingly? I'm tempted to ask why, if it's good for the goose, is it not good for the gander, if you catch my drift? Why isn't poor support from context not evidence against the assessment of a miracle?

[SteveII]

They were big, purposeful, witnessed, and had theological significance. According to the stories about them.

The same can be said about the miracles attributed to Krishna (and still being attributed to him today).

These kinds of stories are readily available and widely believed about all sorts of figures.

The ancient world was a place where miracles were always happening just the next town over, and you knew that because some traveler told you a story about it, and you had no clue why you shouldn't take it at face value. If it was a good enough story, you'd tell someone else.

If you were a devout Hindu who revered Krishna, what would be different about your claims besides the details?

Frankly, I don't know all that much about Krishna/Hinduism. I would ask the following:

1. Is Hinduism theology internally consistent?
2. Does it have a coherent understanding of reality?
3. Is there some sort of body of natural theology that support the tenent of the faith?
4. Are the facts of Krishna's life believable (as a god)? (demons, killing, war, wives, children, died of an arrow wound)

Contrast that with the life and message of Christ. I went over that in detail in this post why I think that is compelling. 

Back to miracle claims, I think the case is better for Christ's miracles. Not only because I think Christianity answers "yes" to the points above (which serve as background support), but because the events in the NT were witnessed, written about in the time period they happened, and believed to be real by the first century church who then wrote extensively about it (unbroken chain of belief).

The fact is that even the first century people of Palestine knew the difference between feeding 5000, healing cripples/lepers/blind, dead people not dead anymore, walking on water, etc. We are not talking about misunderstanding eclipses, weather patterns, or some other difficult to perceive physics or chemistry. It is not reasonable to assume that these people even heard (let alone believed) that there were miraculous healing or dead people rising with regularity in the area. If you don't have evidence that people misunderstood natural cause and effect in the subject matters of cripples/lepers/blind, dead people, walking on water etc., then you are left with an unsupported theory that seems to have only one purpose for one time period.

[Angrboda]

The fact is that even the first century people of Palestine knew the difference between feeding 5000, healing cripples/lepers/blind, dead people not dead anymore, walking on water, etc. We are not talking about misunderstanding eclipses, weather patterns, or some other difficult to perceive physics or chemistry. It is not reasonable to assume that these people even heard (let alone believed) that there were miraculous healing or dead people rising with regularity in the area. If you don't have evidence that people misunderstood natural cause and effect in the subject matters of cripples/lepers/blind, dead people, walking on water etc., then you are left with an unsupported theory that seems to have only one purpose for one time period.

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.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...kooks.html

[SteveII]

Good question. I touched on this in the post above to Redbeard. 


You asked for an example. I have spoken before about my brother-in-laws brain tumor as a teenager. Was having seizures. Scans found tumor. He was being prepped for brain surgery and they scanned to get the latest mapping for the operation. No tumor. The doctor has no explanation and the family and friends believe it was a miracle (to give further context, my father-in-law was a minister in a local church so there was a lot of people involved and a lot of people who cared). Since my worldview contains the supernatural, the NT explains the context of what we can expect if we pray for healing, and there seems to be no natural causes, I believe I am justified in agreeing with them. Can I say 100%? No. 

Thank you for the example.  I share some of Mister Agenda's reservations, but I have a different question along the lines we were discussing before.  How does this relate to the factors which you suggested we should turn to for assessment of the likelihood of a miracle, namely context and, for lack of a better term, cueing (saying "You are healed!" and the person suddenly being healed).  The NT is context for how prayer can heal, but it's a very distant context and there appears to be no such cueing in your brother-in-law's case.  Wouldn't that reduce your assessment of the prospect of it being a miracle correspondingly?  I'm tempted to ask why, if it's good for the goose, is it not good for the gander, if you catch my drift?  Why isn't poor support from context not evidence against the assessment of a miracle?

Excellent point! When discussing Jesus' miracles, the context, that strengthen the claim, might include:

1. Timing (cueing as you put it)
2. Illustrating a particular point. Example Mat 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk. 
3. Reinforce teachings with some authority. Example feeding 5000, Matt 9:35
4. So that people might believe (specifically stated). Example Lazarus (John 11)
5. Reward for faith. 
6. Theologically significant. example virgin birth, baptism, tearing of the veil in the temple, resurrection.

Now, you ask about non-Jesus miracles. I don't think the above list applies to miracle today so we need to switch to why God might intervene with a miracle. I think that God, with his foreknowledge of what we will freely do, has already factored in our prayers in deciding what the best intervention (if any) is for us and the terribly complex "butterfly effect" any intervention might bring to the rest of the future and will do what is best in the long run. In this perspective, timing or "cueing" is meaningless because the goal has nothing to do with the goal. In fact, invoking it should be a red flag.

To further explain that thought, I think the Bible teaches us to ask in faith that God can grant our petition but always with the attitude of "not my will, but your will be done" (Lord's Prayer). Even with the right attitude, God does not promise to answer our every request. The only promise given is illustrated in Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God..."

You are entirely correct that these factors reduce my assessment of the prospect of it being a miracle. That is why I said that today, miracle claims are overstated and I don't use them to argue the existence of miracles specifically or God in general. But in general, I have reason to believe they happen and should be asked for with the right attitude understanding that the answer could very well be "no".