Fire Properties Ignite Curiousity

[Huntun]

If there is a completely natural explanation that would fit the evidence just as good as a supernatural one I would see no reasons to put forth the happenings there as "evidence" of Christianity or God somehow being true. A supernatural occurrence would by definition involve a violation of the "laws or nature" or the way things normally function. This would imply that natural events are much more common then supernatural ones even if supernatural events did in fact take place. Add to this the numerous claims of miracle and the supernatural that have been exposed as hoaxes and also the fact that the very existence of miracles has yet to be established then it would be illogical to privileged the miracle explanation. They even have possible motive to fake a miracle as well - to convince others that theirs is the true religion. This is something they have used historically to portray themselves as the true Church and the Protestants, Catholics, Copts, etc.. to be false.

Hume also gave a good explanation of why the argument for a miracle by testimony doesn't render belief in a miracle credible either. Here is an example of the argument formulated in a simple manner:

1. The argument against a miracle, from the nature of the case, is as strong as any argument from experience could possibly be.
2. The argument for a miracle, from testimony, is at best a strong but somewhat weaker argument from experience.
3. In any case where two arguments from experience point to contradictory conclusions, the stronger argument must prevail.
4. A conclusion is credible only if the argument supporting it is not overcome by a stronger argument for a contradictory conclusion.

Therefore,​

1. The argument for a miracle, from testimony, cannot even under the most favorable circumstances render belief in a miracle credible.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I could see priests in ancient Babylon getting people to fall for it back before much was known by the general public about chemistry and such but it's absurd that they can still pull it off today and people fall for it.

Why not? Religious charlatans know there's a sucker born (again) every minute

 

[Strathos]

Again, if I believed this was a genuine miracle, I'd be Orthodox.

 

[dad]

If there is a completely natural explanation that would fit the evidence just as good as a supernatural one I would see no reasons to put forth the happenings there as "evidence" of Christianity or God somehow being true.

Well, I already know God is true. It caught my attention because the properties of the fire were different than normal.

A supernatural occurrence would by definition involve a violation of the "laws or nature" or the way things normally function. This would imply that natural events are much more common then supernatural ones even if supernatural events did in fact take place.

The only way to get 'normal' here is to invoke a conspiracy over many many centuries. That is not known.

Add to this the numerous claims of miracle and the supernatural that have been exposed as hoaxes and also the fact that the very existence of miracles has yet to be established then it would be illogical to privileged the miracle explanation.

Irrelevant. Most supernatural events are not known to be hoaxes.

They even have possible motive to fake a miracle as well - to convince others that theirs is the true religion. This is something they have used historically to portray themselves as the true Church and the Protestants, Catholics, Copts, etc.. to be false.

Now you are slandering needlessly. Projecting evil motives where you have no idea they exist at all.

Hume also gave a good explanation of why the argument for a miracle by testimony doesn't render belief in a miracle credible either. Here is an example of the argument formulated in a simple manner:

1. The argument against a miracle, from the nature of the case, is as strong as any argument from experience could possibly be.
2. The argument for a miracle, from testimony, is at best a strong but somewhat weaker argument from experience.
3. In any case where two arguments from experience point to contradictory conclusions, the stronger argument must prevail.
4. A conclusion is credible only if the argument supporting it is not overcome by a stronger argument for a contradictory conclusion.

Confusing blather posing as logic.

You either know or you do not know! Trying to smear all people as liars and therefore omit them as possible evidence is just a way to narrow the pool of 'evidence' you desire to admit!

 

[dad]

Again, if I believed this was a genuine miracle, I'd be Orthodox.

Really? Not me. But if it helps some people think about Good, I guess that is fine.

 

[Kylie]

Well, I already know God is true. It caught my attention because the properties of the fire were different than normal.

CLAIMED to be different to normal. With the absence of any actual evidence (no, testimony doesn't count), there's no way to know for sure, is there?

The only way to get 'normal' here is to invoke a conspiracy over many many centuries. That is not known.

But certainly more plausible than a miracle.

Irrelevant. Most supernatural events are not known to be hoaxes.

Most "supernatural" events are known to be a misunderstanding of thing that have perfectly rational explanations.

Some people, however, choose to discard reality in order to cling fast to their precious beliefs.

Now you are slandering needlessly. Projecting evil motives where you have no idea they exist at all.

Except we know for a fact that people actually do this sort of stuff.

Confusing blather posing as logic.

You either know or you do not know! Trying to smear all people as liars and therefore omit them as possible evidence is just a way to narrow the pool of 'evidence' you desire to admit!

Typical of you to just dismiss as irrelevant or confusing anything which goes against your beliefs. Isn't that the definition of "close-minded"?

In any case, you are presenting a false dichotomy. There are more than just the two options of knowing or having no idea. What about "strongly suspecting"?

You seem to have very little understanding of both science and logic...

 

[dad]

CLAIMED to be different to normal. With the absence of any actual evidence (no, testimony doesn't count), there's no way to know for sure, is there?

Well, I notice a certain burning bush never burned at all in the bible when holy fire was there!

But certainly more plausible than a miracle.

Forget plausible when it has no basis in fact. That is gossip that seems like it could have merit, to those eager to hear it.

Most "supernatural" events are known to be a misunderstanding of thing that have perfectly rational explanations.

In your dreams. Where do you dig this nonsense up?

Some people, however, choose to discard reality in order to cling fast to their precious beliefs.

Right, we believe God, rather than man and Satan's lies.

Except we know for a fact that people actually do this sort of stuff.

Hey, are posters all killers now because some people do that?

Typical of you to just dismiss as irrelevant or confusing anything which goes against your beliefs. Isn't that the definition of "close-minded"?

No. Close minded would be to smear people without reason or fact.

In any case, you are presenting a false dichotomy. There are more than just the two options of knowing or having no idea. What about "strongly suspecting"?

Worthless when you have no facts or knowledge. Gossip. Slander.

You seem to have very little understanding of both science and logic...

What science do you have for the holy fire? Logic? Well, you should not talk of strangers!