I accept Burden of Proof, but only because I choose to.

[Tinker Grey]

The difficulty with using reports of miracles as evidence for supernatural is that in most cases the miracle is in the way a NATURAL occurrence satisfies some need at just the right time. For example, there was a ghost story where a person did not have money to buy cigarettes but in stopping the car a bunch of old coins came sliding out of the headliner into his lap which allowed him to buy the cigarettes. If the coins had simply slid out of the headliner at some random time and without a need for coins then it would have seemed more mundane. Although that example is a ghost story, Christian reports of miracles are often the same - natural occurrences that satisfy some need at just the right time and often after requesting help from God. It seems that these types of miracles are very hard to confirm as supernatural.

However, there are reports of miracles that would seem supernatural. For example, there are ghost stories where objects such as cutlery fly across the room and are witnessed by multiple people. Similarly there is at least one story of a Christian in Africa returning to life after being dead for several days. Why is there never any evidence for these things? Or maybe there is evidence, but we simply prefer to ignore it because it makes us uncomfortable to take these reports seriously?

A final factor is psychology. Some people imagine things or hallucinate things. Then there are unscrupulous people who exaggerate reports to make the books they write sell better. Or similarly preachers who want to whip their parish into a frenzy of tithing with some uplifting story of a miracle. Hate to be cynical, but it almost seems that nobody takes contemporary reports of miracles and supernatural seriously enough to investigate carefully. Why? Do we subconsciously know they are all bunk or do we subconsciously worry that they might overturn our comfortable ideas about reality? I think a lot of Christians are just as skeptical as atheists when the topic is contemporary reports of miracles and supernatural. They believe Moses parted the Red Sea, but they don't believe God does things like that today. That is why they always want to talk about philosophy and cosmology instead of an active God today.

The Amazing Randi is somewhat famous for One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia.

The point here is that if such a thing is real it should be demonstrable under controlled conditions. If you "see" what card I'm holding on a stage, if it were real magic, you should be able to do it in a lab. And yet, it never is.

Humans want to be fooled. Some of it's fun. Some of it is nefarious. Even my middle name challenge wouldn't really prove the supernatural. It may be that my interlocutor is simply a very good hacker. Failure to come up with my middle name wouldn't disprove the supernatural either. But if one came up with it, it'd be something rather than nothing. How about go on national TV and make Joe Biden 20 years younger. Why not turn the Sahara into a rain forest? Even healing everyone in a hospital would make nearly everyone else sit up and take notice.

But these things never happen. Just people bumping into tables in a dark house.

 

[cloudyday2]

The Amazing Randi is somewhat famous for One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia.

The point here is that if such a thing is real it should be demonstrable under controlled conditions. If you "see" what card I'm holding on a stage, if it were real magic, you should be able to do it in a lab. And yet, it never is.

Humans want to be fooled. Some of it's fun. Some of it is nefarious. Even my middle name challenge wouldn't really prove the supernatural. It may be that my interlocutor is simply a very good hacker. Failure to come up with my middle name wouldn't disprove the supernatural either. But if one came up with it, it'd be something rather than nothing. How about go on national TV and make Joe Biden 20 years younger. Why not turn the Sahara into a rain forest? Even healing everyone in a hospital would make nearly everyone else sit up and take notice.

But these things never happen. Just people bumping into tables in a dark house.

I mostly agree, but I don't agree that supernatural things should be demonstrable under controlled conditions. Certainly a psychic who routinely claims to have some ESP capability ought to be able to demonstrate that under controlled conditions. However, a pair of people who claim to have witnessed cutlery flying across the kitchen can't be expected to demonstrate that event again under controlled conditions. On the other hand, the growing use of home surveillance might provide some video of these types of poltergeist phenomena if they actually happen (and assuming the poltergeists aren't carefully avoiding the cameras). Of course the video can be challenged as a hoax.

Miracle claims are similarly difficult to demonstrate under controlled conditions. There are claims of people being miraculously healed from cancer and other illnesses in response to prayers, but these never seem to convince skeptics. Why do these claims never become evidence that spurs scientific investigation even when there are medical exams to back the claims? Maybe the claims are exaggerated and the actual facts are not quite so convincing, or maybe the skeptics are too cynical to investigate? Maybe nobody has the time and energy and responsibility for these kinds of investigations and allowing mistaken belief in miracles seems harmless?

 

[Paulomycin]

Here, do a miracle. You've got 30 minutes to tell me my in-real-life middle name. Can you do it?

- You're confusing miracles with magic.
- "And Jesus answered and said to him, “It has been stated, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
- I'm a cessationist. Not a continuationist. Miracles are an extension of God's direct intervention. In the Bible, God often waits a long time (sometimes centuries) before giving direct revelation, intervention, or miracles. So lack of miracles doesn't indicate anything. At best, it is an appeal to ignorance, "No miracles = evidence of a non-existence of a miracle worker."

Of course not. Pray that I grow 6 inches taller. Can you do it? Go to your hospital and heal everybody. I'm sure it'll be in my evening news. Jesus supposedly could. Can you?

Your first mistake was assuming that we claimed God is some sort of cosmic vending machine. We're not all "Word of Faith" heretics like Copeland, Hinn, and those guys on TBN.

If the apologist can demonstrate the supernatural, why should anyone believe it. There is simply no reason to believe any story that includes the supernatural.

^ Math is unfalsifiable, therefore rationally supernatural. There. It was hiding in plan sight under your very nose this entire time. Now, in-order to hold onto your confirmation bias, you will have to move the goalposts.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Math is unfalsifiable, therefore rationally supernatural.

Add supernatural and unfalsifiable to the list of words you don't understand.

 

[Moral Orel]

I mostly agree, but I don't agree that supernatural things should be demonstrable under controlled conditions. Certainly a psychic who routinely claims to have some ESP capability ought to be able to demonstrate that under controlled conditions. However, a pair of people who claim to have witnessed cutlery flying across the kitchen can't be expected to demonstrate that event again under controlled conditions. On the other hand, the growing use of home surveillance might provide some video of these types of poltergeist phenomena if they actually happen (and assuming the poltergeists aren't carefully avoiding the cameras). Of course the video can be challenged as a hoax.

Spoiler: Actually, scientists have discovered a fool proof way to test whether or not a house is haunted.

It isn't.

 

[cloudyday2]

Spoiler: Actually, scientists have discovered a fool proof way to test whether or not a house is haunted.

It isn't.

Yep, that sounds like what most scientists would say. Ironically some of those scientists who so smugly dismiss poltergeist experiences show no skepticism towards Christian claims.

 

[Lion IRC]

Here, do a miracle. You've got 30 minutes to tell me my in-real-life middle name. Can you do it?

Of course not. Pray that I grow 6 inches taller. Can you do it? Go to your hospital and heal everybody. I'm sure it'll be in my evening news. Jesus supposedly could. Can you?

If the apologist can demonstrate the supernatural, why should anyone believe it. There is simply no reason to believe any story that includes the supernatural.

Methodological skeptics wouldn't believe you if you told them that I made you grow taller.

No matter how much you pleaded with them to believe you, they would have two dozen alternative naturalistic explanations...they would claim that you're making it up, lying, deluded, mistaken, standing up straight instead of slouching...

They would demand that you repeat the miracle right before their very eyes. And then, even if you did, and they went off to tell their skeptical friends about the miracle they just saw, those skeptics would, in turn, off the same skeptical rebuttals.

This is the arrogance of putting God to the proof.

Hey God, before I decide whether or not to obey You, first, You must obey me - perform on demand, for me. Jump thru my hoops. Then we'll talk.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Methodological skeptics wouldn't believe you if you told them that I made you grow taller.

Excuses, excuses. The point is that I'd believe you.

Jesus said his "[followers] will do even greater things than these" John 14:12. And yet, somehow they never do. So, per v11, show me the works.

 

[Paulomycin]

Add supernatural and unfalsifiable to the list of words you don't understand.

You haven't provided any objective corrections to the contrary. I can only conclude you're merely pretending to know something.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You haven't provided any objective corrections to the contrary. I can only conclude you're merely pretending to know something.

Can you do supernatural works or not? Can you do a miracle? No? Didn't think so.

Math simply isn't in the category of truth statements. See our previous conversation. Like a circle, we math is something we invented as a tool to describe reality.

The definition of a circle (nor math) isn't something that is in the category of things to be falsified. It is a definition. It is what we say it is.

The supernatural is something that allegedly exists external to our minds. So where is it? You can't show it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Can you do supernatural works or not? Can you do a miracle? No? Didn't think so.

Because I'm a Cessationist and not a Continuationist. So, it's not an issue to begin with.

Math simply isn't in the category of truth statements.

Deductive truth statements are math-based. You don't even know what you're talking about.

See our previous conversation. Like a circle, we math is something we invented as a tool to describe reality.

Reality is prescriptive. Every bridge you drive across or plane you fly on relies on prescriptive math. We landed on the moon relying on Newton's calculations. <-- Which were discovered, not invented.

If you claim math is invented, then you're literally saying we can re-invent 2 + 2 to equal 7, and just have everyone agree to this rule by consensus fiat. But that would still be wrong. Therefore, math is discovered.

The definition of a circle (nor math) isn't something that is in the category of things to be falsified. It is a definition. It is what we say it is.

So you admit it's unfalsifiable. Therefore, supernatural. The mathematics that nature wholly depends on supercedes nature. Thus, it is perfectly rational to believe that such dependency is supra-natural, or simply supernatural.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So you admit it's unfalsifiable. Therefore, supernatural.

All definitions are unfalsifiable. Are all definitions supernatural? Of course not. None are.

 

[Paulomycin]

All definitions are unfalsifiable. Are all definitions supernatural? Of course not. None are.

1. Then you have no clear and consistent definition of "supernatural."

2. You have no authoritative source for the arbitrary rule, "All definitions are unfalsifiable."

 

[Lion IRC]

Excuses, excuses. The point is that I'd believe you.

Jesus said his "[followers] will do even greater things than these" John 14:12. And yet, somehow they never do. So, per v11, show me the works.

So God has to dispense miracles one-by-one, each skeptical atheist getting their own private miracle 'lap dance' as proof. Is that what it takes?

And I notice you didn't address or deny my point that, even when presented with an apparent miracle, the committed skeptic has a few dozen alternative 'goto' explanations which they will always prefer over the miracle explanation.

Heck, I can gainsay ANY scientific fact claim using the very same skeptical method which presuppositional atheists apply to miraculous divine intervention.

Science says Pluto is a planet.
I'm skeptical.
Can you prove the claim that Pluto is a planet?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yep, that sounds like what most scientists would say. Ironically some of those scientists who so smugly dismiss poltergeist experiences show no skepticism towards Christian claims.

It's actually a Jimmy Carr joke. I didn't want to give him the credit when I used it because I didn't want the fact that it was an actual joke to be too obvious.

 

[cloudyday2]

It's actually a Jimmy Carr joke. I didn't want to give him the credit when I used it because I didn't want the fact that it was an actual joke to be too obvious.

Hauntings are kind of interesting to me, because if you poll your circle of friends you will probably find more people who have experienced a haunting than have experienced a UFO. Yet there seems to be less about hauntings than there is about UFOs. Most governments occasionally collect and study UFO reports, but I'm not aware that they ever collect and study haunting reports. Of course UFO reports sometimes are sightings of top secret aircraft or aging spy satellites reentering the atmosphere, so I can understand why governments might be more interested in UFOs than hauntings due to the national security implications. Still, it seems to me that people whose interest in UFOs is driven by curiosity should have similar curiosity about hauntings, but usually they don't. ... Just my rant LOL

 

[cloudyday2]

^ @Moral Orel , adding to my rant posted above, claims of miracles are almost never examined by believer or disbelievers. This seems a shame, because there is some potential evidence of God active today. Yet believers seem to feel that skeptical examination is irreverent. The Catholic Church investigates some claims of miracles, but I suspect that their primary concern is to protect Catholics from heretical idea. For example, if the "Virgin Mary" tells somebody that some Catholic belief is wrong then the Catholic Church has an interest in examining and discrediting the miracle.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So God has to dispense miracles one-by-one, each skeptical atheist getting their own private miracle 'lap dance' as proof. Is that what it takes?

And I notice you didn't address or deny my point that, even when presented with an apparent miracle, the committed skeptic has a few dozen alternative 'goto' explanations which they will always prefer over the miracle explanation.

Heck, I can gainsay ANY scientific fact claim using the very same skeptical method which presuppositional atheists apply to miraculous divine intervention.

Science says Pluto is a planet.
I'm skeptical.
Can you prove the claim that Pluto is a planet?

If you can't demonstrate miracles, why should I believe that they are a thing. Skeptics eventually come around when you can consistently demonstrate your claims.

So, consistently demonstrate your claims. Do it in a controlled environment. If miracles are possible, you can demonstrate it right?

Oh, and "planet" is a definition. I can demonstrate that Pluto exists whatever category we place it in.

 

[Lion IRC]

No living person has ever seen Pluto. Alleged 'photos' of Pluto are very recent creations. Probably forgeries designed to justify NASA's exorbitant, wasteful budget. (NASA $29 billion dollars. The Vatican $0.3 billion)

I won't believe Pluto exists unless I can see it with my own eyes. Do it in a controlled environment. If Pluto exists, you can demonstrate it right?

 

[cloudyday2]

And I notice you didn't address or deny my point that, even when presented with an apparent miracle, the committed skeptic has a few dozen alternative 'goto' explanations which they will always prefer over the miracle explanation.

What they are actually do is applying Occam's Razor.

Let's say an experiment seems to demonstrate that mind reading works. Virtually everybody accepts that science can explain most things, but science today can't explain how mind reading could possibly work. So a person can either believe that science needs to be made more complicated with some new field of study (mind-reading-ology?) or a person can suspect that the experiment is fraudulent or flawed without necessarily possessing the smoking gun to prove that yet. It's very reasonable to suspect the experiment is bogus until lots and lots of evidence makes that position of skepticism untenable. It is choosing the simpler explanation, because we know that fraudulent and flawed experiments exist, so we don't need to add anything to our model of reality to explain it.