Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That might be considered circular, but I am not convinced that it is. IF there is no known explanation for something that's way out of the ordinary, there really is a possibility that the reason is something supernatural.
Let's say that Bob and Alice go to the beach and see someone walking on water. Bob comments, "Wow, I don't understand how this is happening as it appears to defy all laws of physics. I wonder how he is doing it?"
Alice answers, "God is causing him to be able to walk on water."
Bob says, "But, first we must establish that God exists. How do you know God exists?"
Alice answer, "Just look at all the miraculous events in our world."
Anyone have a response to this?
Bob's position seems more intellectually honest: admission of ignorance to the cause of his observation. He honestly doesn't know how it is happening and he readily admits as such.
No, that's not a question to be taken seriously. Not only is it possible, but we do have some evidence of things beyond the physical. That doesn't mean that this proves God, but it sure means that contemplating it and examining the possibility is not a waste of time. If you say, "what evidence do you have that the supernatural is even possible?" it's like asking, "How do I know for sure that anyone besides myself even exists? Everything that my sense receptors are telling me could be an illusion."What evidence do you have that the supernatural is even possible?
No, that's not a question to be taken seriously. Not only is it possible, but we do have some evidence of things beyond the physical. That doesn't mean that this proves God, but it sure means that contemplating it and examining the possibility is not a waste of time. If you say, "what evidence do you have that the supernatural is even possible?" it's like asking, "How do I know for sure that anyone besides myself even exists? Everything that my sense receptors are telling me could be an illusion."
There are all sorts of unexplained mysteries. They even make TV shows out of them. If there are no known natural explanations, the possibility of there being a supernatural explanation is present.
Perhaps. Or perhaps God isn't doing what people claim he is doing.
There are lots of claims that saints performed miracles as well, yet for some reason that doesn't seem to be the crucial detail of their historical existence.
And that curiosity would cause you to ... ?
I can appreciate that. But it isn't what "Bob" said, is it?
Let's say that Bob and Alice go to the beach and see someone walking on water. Bob comments, "Wow, I don't understand how this is happening as it appears to defy all laws of physics. I wonder how he is doing it?"
Alice answers, "God is causing him to be able to walk on water."
Since I've both explained the import of "Bob's" words and quoted them back to you in order to show exactly what I mean, only to see no recognition of any of that in your replies, I don't know what more can be said."Wow, I don't understand how this is happening as it appears to defy all laws of physics. I wonder how he is doing it?"
See OP.
Which would also land us in the position of seriously re-thinking what we mean by 'God' and perhaps tossing out a lot of the Bible while we are at it. If hands-off deism is what God is, then much of Christianity is false or misguided.
Yes many Hindu and Christian saints have been said to perform miracles. Most of the claims can't be substantiated, so they are downplayed in importance.
I think that the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus is a somewhat important historical component of the Christian faith...
Ask about it. Inquire. Do some digging.
No 'maybe' about it, they don't; if the friend recovers, the cancer was not terminal.Maybe Bob and Alice both have a friend who has terminal cancer and then suddenly recovers.
Basically, this is correct. However, Bob is clearly not a neutral party asking the obvious question. He immediately questions her belief in God rather than addressing the possible range of explanations for the event...and that's what the average person would most likely do.I would cut off the dialogue here.
Bob is honest. He doesn't know what's going on.
Alice is leaping to a very specific conclusion without any evidence.
We looked easily at the sun, which for some reason did not blind us. It seemed to flicker on and off, first one way, then another. It cast its rays in many directions and painted everything in different colors--- the trees, the people, the air and the ground. But what was most extraordinary, I thought, was that the sun did not hurt our eyes. Everything was still and quiet, and everyone was looking up. Then at a certain moment, the sun appeared to stop spinning. It then began to move and to dance in the sky until it seemed to detach itself from its place and fall upon us. It was a terrible moment.
Ti Marto (father of Jacinta and Francisco)
It was a remarkable fact that one could fix one's eyes on this brazier of heat and light without any pain in the eyes or blinding of the retina. The phenomenon, except for two interruptions when the sun seemed to send out rays of refulgent heat which obliged us to look away, must have lasted about ten minutes.
Dr. Almeida Garrett, PhD (Coimbra University)
Near us was an unbeliever who had spent the morning mocking at the simpletons who had gone off to Fátima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed to be paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. Afterwards he trembled from head to foot and lifting up his arms fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to our Lady.
Fr. Ignacio Lorenco (Alburitel, 11 miles away)
Since I've both explained the import of "Bob's" words and quoted them back to you in order to show exactly what I mean, only to see no recognition of any of that in your replies, I don't know what more can be said.
ToddNotTodd says that they are only unexplained natural phenomena. For some reason, he knows that the supernatural doesn't exist.Someone walking on the water would be "supernatural" - full stop - unless there was some "natural" explanation.
Basically, this is correct. However, Bob is clearly not a neutral party asking the obvious question. He immediately questions her belief in God rather than addressing the possible range of explanations for the event...and that's what the average person would most likely do.
Let's say Bill and Amy are walking in the woods and they come upon two paw prints. Bill says, "Wow, I've never seen anything like this before, I wonder what caused those?"
Amy responds, "A bear caused those footprints"
Bill has never seen a bear or heard of a bear. He doesn't know anything about bears or their attributes.
It is perfectly reasonable for Bill to ask, "What's a bear?" or "How do you know bear's exist?"
Amy responds, "Because of the paw prints!"
==> Circular
Bob's reply to Alice's claim that God caused the miracle is the same. (Except he didn't ask what God is...but perhaps he should have).
No 'maybe' about it, they don't; if the friend recovers, the cancer was not terminal.
The problems with your hypotheticals seem to be in the assumptions made in them.
Except that Bob's response in the OP was NOT like this, not 'the same.' For the sake of your thread, shall we agree to throw it out and go with this amended scenario instead? That would have Bob answering Alice by saying, "What's a 'God?'"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?