Evidence of miracles.

[Mink61]

@Mink61,

You posted earlier that we weren't taking this seriously. Well, I am. Various posters want to argue about vague things in the past that are poorly documented events that are unverifiable now if they ever were.

I agree that some of the past events were poorly documented by today's standards. Unfortunately, it's all we've got to go on.

This is what I want. I don't believe in a supernatural. Some say, and I tend to agree, that the very word supernatural is incoherent. I don't believe in spiritual. I don't believe in the suspension of the natural laws of the universe. What I want is proof of the supernatural/spiritual/miraculous here and now. Until it is demonstrated that there is such a thing then any arguments about past miracles are a waste of time. The very substrate of the claim hasn't been established.

What standard of "proof" should we use? What would it take to convince you?

For example, suppose someone claimed that Joe MacIntosh drove his 1956 Ford Fairlane 350 mph. We know cars exist. Some modern supercars have approached this speed. So we know a sufficiently powerful engine could perhaps drive the mass of this car, however non-aerodynamic, to some speed approaching this. (Pity the idiot behind the wheel!) We know these things here and now.

(I promise *I* won't be the idiot behind the wheel!)

For the miraculous, we have no evidence for even the basis of being able to such things. There is a reason why I posted John 14:12 earlier. It says "greater things than these". Jesus raised the dead. Jesus healed people. Jesus fed people with almost no resources.

Oh, we have plenty of evidence. It's just that perhaps a believer's idea of evidence doesn't qualify as evidence to you.

So show me the supernatural/spiritual/miraculous. Do something greater than Jesus. None of this "I found my keys" stuff. Walk through a cemetery and raised all the dead at once (or even one). Surely, it would make the news. Many would come to know your god as Lord and Savior. Walk through a hospital and heal everyone (or maybe just one amputee). Materialize enough food to feed the starving in refugee camps. Actually, move a mountain.

Something.

Anything.

Nothing?

"A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away." Matthew 16:4

Jesus performed 47* recorded miracles (*according to my Catholic Bible). John 20:30-31 says, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."

Even if God Himself came swooping down to earth and performed a miracle right in front of you, would you believe it?

 

[Mink61]

I dont suppose you'd have any interest in a different pov.

Sure. But I have to warn you that I'm leaving for a few hours so...I won't be able to respond until later on.

 

[Astrid]

I agree that some of the past events were poorly documented by today's standards. Unfortunately, it's all we've got to go on.


What standard of "proof" should we use? What would it take to convince you?


(I promise *I* won't be the idiot behind the wheel!)


Oh, we have plenty of evidence. It's just that perhaps a believer's idea of evidence doesn't qualify as evidence to you.


"A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away." Matthew 16:4

Jesus performed 47* recorded miracles (*according to my Catholic Bible). John 20:30-31 says, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."

Even if God Himself came swooping down to earth and performed a miracle right in front of you, would you believe it?

That last implies a sort of intellectual dishonesty, dont you
think?
In any case, God would be clever enough to convince anyone,
including the dead.

What do you think of someone insisting Noahs ark is real,
despite the multiple and very solid ways of proving there was no
such event as a world wide flood?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree that some of the past events were poorly documented by today's standards. Unfortunately, it's all we've got to go on.


What standard of "proof" should we use? What would it take to convince you?


(I promise *I* won't be the idiot behind the wheel!)


Oh, we have plenty of evidence. It's just that perhaps a believer's idea of evidence doesn't qualify as evidence to you.


"A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away." Matthew 16:4

Jesus performed 47* recorded miracles (*according to my Catholic Bible). John 20:30-31 says, "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name."

Even if God Himself came swooping down to earth and performed a miracle right in front of you, would you believe it?

I made it clear what sort of evidence I would accept. (I should have said evidence rather than proof.) I want ERs to go away because we staff ambulances with believers who just heal the sick/wounded and raise the dead. I want believers to provide food such that there are no starving anywhere in the world--after all, if Jesus could feed the 5,000 shouldn't 2 billion Christians be able to feed the world. (For that matter, why are there any sick or hungry Christians anywhere.)

And yes, if a god itself came and did all sorts of miraculous stuff, it would go a long way to convincing me. (Although, remember Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")

All I get from your post is that you cannot do a single thing that even remotely look like a miracle.

Whether Jesus did 47 recorded miracles or not, where are your miracles? John 14:12 Until you can demonstrate that a miracle is even possible, Jesus' miracles are just tales told for the gullible.

 

[jayem]

I see God the same way. He knows what I'm going to do/think/say/write before *I* know. He knows all of us better than we know ourselves. He sees our future before it happens. But he's not making it happen.

This is off topic. How do you know that your actions are not being directed by God? If God is truly omnipotent, then he has the power to control your thoughts and behavior subconsciously. You might think you’re making your own decisions, but God is actually pulling the strings. How can you possibly know that’s not the case? Doesn’t the book of Exodus relate that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart—and more than once—against releasing the Hebrews from slavery? Other than faith, there’s no way to be certain that God isn’t the power behind everyone’s actions and beliefs.

And if God has sovereignty over the universe, then logic also dictates that nothing can happen that ‘s not in accordance with God’s will. Whatever happens must ultimately be part of God’s grand plan. Then it makes sense to say—as you did—that God knows what choices we will make. Because he has already ordained them.

Belief in free will can only exist as an article of faith. As I see it, there’s a glaring logical conflict between human free will, and belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and sovereign deity.

Sorry for going off topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's really funny that so many atheists don't want to argue and/or debate...they only want to insult...belittle...criticize...and condescend...and THEN some. Referring to what I wrote as "ignorant" only tells me that you're not in the mood for decent conversation.

That's just not cool...

<sigh> Pointing out that you used an Argument From Ignorance fallacy is not calling you ignorant It is not belittling. You are overly sensitive, perhaps because you keep losing arguments here.

An Argument From Ignorance is a logical fallacy. It describes your argument, not you:

Argument From Ignorance: Can’t Prove A Thing - Academy 4SC

You might want to check out the article. In the example given the atheist is the one using that argument (I know shocking!!). An argument from ignorance does not prove anything. It is a logical fallacy. The bad news is that by using it you did not prove your point. The good news is that by using it you did not prove that you were wrong. An argument from ignorance is just a waste of bandwidth that proves nothing either way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More insults I see...

No, there was no insult there. Just an observation. Do you want to run through how you did claim that there was no free will?

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh no. Another scoffer with undeveloped taste buds. And now he wants me to do his chores!

Is it homeopathic wine?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it homeopathic wine?

You got it. Guaranteed at least as much wine as you will find medicine in a homeopathic cure. In many cases there will be ten times as much . So make sure that you do not drink too much. Or is that too little? I still get confused.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You got it. Guaranteed at least as much wine as you will find medicine in a homeopathic cure. In many cases there will be ten times as much . So make sure that you do not drink too much. Or is that too little? I still get confused.

One of my favorite sketches. Make sure you get to the end.

 

[VirOptimus]

One of my favorite sketches. Make sure you get to the end.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Exactly what I was thinking.

Strong stuff.

 

[NxNW]

Foreknowledge doesn't equal causation.

But if God made us knowing how we'd behave, he caused it all to happen.

Just because He knows in advance what's going to happen, doesn't mean He's causing it to happen.

It does if he was the one who made us, while knowing what we'd do.

And even though we can't surprise God, that doesn't make us automatons.

What's the difference?

Just as an example...When both of my daughters were born, I knew that my oldest would go to college, and my youngest would not. It was predictable (for me) simply because I knew both of them very well. I knew their personalities...their likes...their dislikes. Now, because I knew them, did I cause them to go to college/not go to college? Nope.

But you didn't know this for a fact before they existed. Not a valid comparison.

I see God the same way. He knows what I'm going to do/think/say/write before *I* know.

That's because he programmed you to do all these things. If you can't surprise God, you're not making a choice. Everything is predetermined.

He knows all of us better than we know ourselves. He sees our future before it happens. But he's not making it happen.

If God created us knowing all these things in advance, he is most certainly making it happen. Everything is transpiring exactly as he conceived it.

There was a quote from a priest...I can't remember who, but he said something like, "If I had God's power, I would change the world. If I had God's knowledge, I'd leave everything as it is."

This assumes what you're trying to prove, but it doesn't provide evidence for your argument.

It's ONE definition of a miracle. There are others.

It's the only definition relevant to this thread.

No, not His fault. Ours.

Nothing is our fault if God planned every action in advance, and there's no way to avoid it.

 

[NxNW]

God's eyes tell me that EVERYTHING is a miracle. We're not just here on this planet because of some 'random' act of "nature".

Natural selection is not random, but it originates from random mutations.

Life is too 'perfect' for that.

Cancer and heart attacks are perfect?

A miniscule closer to the sun, we'd burn up. A miniscule farther away, we'd freeze.

Absolutely false. The Earth's orbit varies by a couple million miles during the year, and Discover magazine calculated a few years ago that there is plenty of room for the orbit to vary even more.

If gravity changed one direction or another, we wouldn't exist...

If you're making the fine-tuning argument, you must disavow any creationist claims that the speed of light varies or that the nuclear forces inside the atom vary.

It's all just too complicated...

Complexity emerges on its own from nature. Look at a snowflake, for example. There is nothing supernatural about it whatsoever.

 

[NxNW]

Jesus performed 47* recorded miracles (*according to my Catholic Bible).

What were the dates and times and GPS coordinates of them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of my favorite sketches. Make sure you get to the end.

You have probably seen this. It is on the same order, but longer. RIP Randi:

 

[Tinker Grey]

You have probably seen this. It is on the same order, but longer. RIP Randi:

I have seen that! AND, I'm cuing it up for another view.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Another thread had a curious title.

Independently REPEATABLE evidence of miracles. Which is a logical contradiction in the sense that by definition researchers cannot repeat the supernatural, otherwise it wouldn’t be supernatural.

So all that can be done is
1/ to identify evidence of the unexplained.
2/ to confirm it is inexplicable, by breaking a fundamental paradigm of science as it is known
( eg prophecy as a simple example because of time arrow, consciousness outside the brain )
3/ that there is no credible means of faking the evidence.
The only repeat possible is reassessment of evidence, not repeat the event.

2 and 3 here can never be known. You can never rule out explanations that you don't know about or ways of faking things that you don't know about.

 

[Astrid]

2 and 3 here can never be known. You can never rule out explanations that you don't know about or ways of faking things that you don't know about.

Hmmm

2 and 3 look pretty sound to me.

Someone growing a new leg, or safely spending a few days in
the belly of a great fish would satisfy me.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hmmm

2 and 3 look pretty sound to me.

Someone growing a new leg, or safely spending a few days in
the belly of a great fish would satisfy me.

Lets take them one at a time.

2/ to confirm it is inexplicable, by breaking a fundamental paradigm of science as it is known
( eg prophecy as a simple example because of time arrow, consciousness outside the brain )

Breaking a fundamental paradigm of science only leads to a conclusion that "we don't know". How do you rule out that our paradigm was wrong? If someone grows a new leg how do you rule out a process yet unknown to us was the cause?

3/ that there is no credible means of faking the evidence.
The only repeat possible is reassessment of evidence, not repeat the event.

Magicians do this all the time. They fake magic and it stumps us. That does not mean we can conclude it was actually magic. There is just a natural explanation that we don't know about. How do you know it is not possible to spend 3 days in the belly of a great fish by natural means?

Lack of an explanation is not good evidence to believe in miracles. Good evidence is a good reason to believe in miracles. I don't see how we would ever get good evidence for miracles but I am open to them.