What would be sufficent evidence to prove that the super natural exist?

[tacdon]

I know you asked non-believers what evidence they would need to believe in God, but have you considered what is written about unbelievers in Romans 1:18-23? Please know that I am sincerely asking you this question. I'm not trying to argue with you or with anyone else in your thread.

Yes, I know this. I'm just curious to see how hard headed someone can be.

 

[tacdon]

I believe miracles happen today even though they aren't biblical type miracles; pillars of smoke, columns of fire, seas parting so thousands of people can walk through on dry ground. Even biblical miracles would be explained away. Even if an amputated limb grew back right in front of somebody else's eyes people would try to find a scientific explanation.

I agree. Even if God opened heaven up for all to see him, people would come up with some scientific/natural reasons to explain it, instead of simply saying "Wow, that is a miracle, now I believe in God"

 

[PsychoSarah]

If a true miracle happened it would be explained away. Jesus himself appears to a church = a mass delusion caused by religious hysteria. Someone dies and is declared dead by a medical examiner but comes back to life in the morgue the next day = lazarus syndrome.

And that is why it is so great so many people have smart phones with cameras on them so that a miracle could be recorded for all to see. But alas, it seems miracles decided to stop happening after the invention of the camera, but they do seem to have made somewhat of a comeback after Photoshop was developed. Hmm, I wonder why that happened

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree. Even if God opened heaven up for all to see him, people would come up with some scientific/natural reasons to explain it, instead of simply saying "Wow, that is a miracle, now I believe in God"

So basically...even if someone has a perfectly reasonable natural explanation for a so-called miracle....you'll still think it's a miracle?

 

[tacdon]

So basically...even if someone has a perfectly reasonable natural explanation for a so-called miracle....you'll still think it's a miracle?

Thanks for proving my point, well done.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thanks for proving my point, well done.

The whole point of it being a miracle though is in it being unexplainable. Even if god was the cause, what would be impressive about it doing something which was plausible without it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thanks for proving my point, well done.

As Sarah points out, you're setting the bar really low for what a "miracle" is. The grass grew! It's a miracle! The paint dried! It's a miracle!

 

[tacdon]

As Sarah points out, you're setting the bar really low for what a "miracle" is. The grass grew! It's a miracle! The paint dried! It's a miracle!

Either way people will argue about it, so that is why I'd rather let each one decide in their own mind what a miracle is to them.

If someone says a miracle is when a blind person can see after being prayed for then let that be a miracle to them.

We could probably start a debate on people's definition of a miracle and people would argue still.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Either way people will argue about it, so that is why I'd rather let each one decide in their own mind what a miracle is to them.

If someone says a miracle is when a blind person can see after being prayed for then let that be a miracle to them.

We could probably start a debate on people's definition of a miracle and people would argue still.

I think you're right.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Either way people will argue about it, so that is why I'd rather let each one decide in their own mind what a miracle is to them.

If someone says a miracle is when a blind person can see after being prayed for then let that be a miracle to them.

We could probably start a debate on people's definition of a miracle and people would argue still.

look, there would be no way of telling the difference between miracle and natural phenomenon if the only miracles god preformed had plausible naturalistic explanations. Thus, it would render the wonder and impact of the event being a miracle essentially null.

 

[KCfromNC]

look, there would be no way of telling the difference between miracle and natural phenomenon if the only miracles god preformed had plausible naturalistic explanations. Thus, it would render the wonder and impact of the event being a miracle essentially null.

It is funny - science has such a terrific track record that even people trying to sell the whole "it is a miracle" angle can't even come up with hypothetical which can't be explained by science.

 

[Paradoxum]

It sounds like you would consider nothing to be a miracle then.

Do you know anyone who is sick or handicapped? If that person was prayed for and wasn't sick or handicapped anymore would you believe it was a miracle?

A miracle is a hard thing to prove. It could just be something that we don't understand.

I know of people who claim to have claimed to be healed. The problem is, all I know is that they were prayed for, and were better at some point. That doesn't necessarily prove there's a God... it could show that psychology has a big influence.

My big problem is that, if God is willing and able to intervene to heal some people, then He could just appear to us (perhaps as a spiritual Jesus), and prove that he exists as best he could. But even though it's apparently very important to believe, he still doesn't bothered to convince us he's there.

Also, God only seems to heal some people sometimes. Many times people are prayed for, but aren't healed. If I could heal them, I would do it... but the loving God doesn't.

I can see why miracles are convincing to believers. I used to believe, and I found miracles to be convincing. I used to tell my non-believing friends about it, but they didn't find it all that convincing. I found that strange at the time, but now it makes sense.

To claim that some event is the action of a divine Lord of the universe is a big claim, and miracles just don't prove that. Something amazing happening, that we don't understand, could just be something we haven't figured out how it happens yet.

 

[tacdon]

A miracle is a hard thing to prove. It could just be something that we don't understand.

I know of people who claim to have claimed to be healed. The problem is, all I know is that they were prayed for, and were better at some point. That doesn't necessarily prove there's a God... it could show that psychology has a big influence.

My big problem is that, if God is willing and able to intervene to heal some people, then He could just appear to us (perhaps as a spiritual Jesus), and prove that he exists as best he could. But even though it's apparently very important to believe, he still doesn't bothered to convince us he's there.

Also, God only seems to heal some people sometimes. Many times people are prayed for, but aren't healed. If I could heal them, I would do it... but the loving God doesn't.

I can see why miracles are convincing to believers. I used to believe, and I found miracles to be convincing. I used to tell my non-believing friends about it, but they didn't find it all that convincing. I found that strange at the time, but now it makes sense.

To claim that some event is the action of a divine Lord of the universe is a big claim, and miracles just don't prove that. Something amazing happening, that we don't understand, could just be something we haven't figured out how it happens yet.

I guess you're saying that there is no such thing as a miracle, that miracles are impossible, because they can be explained with the natural or even if it they can't be explained with the natural now, maybe in the future they will be explained.

 

[variant]

Without a working definition and a theory of action (some expectations we might see if proposition X is true) the term supernatural doesn't mean anything.

It's useless to debate hypothetical supernatural events if we don't know what they look like exactly.

"Unexplained phenomena" isn't going to cut it. I experience an unexplained phenomena every single day, it's called the universe.

 

[tacdon]

Without a working definition and a theory of action (some expectations we might see if proposition X is true) the term supernatural doesn't mean anything.

It's useless to debate hypothetical supernatural events if we don't know what they look like exactly.

Can you come up with a definition for the supernatural? Then we'll see if anyone disagrees with your definition.

 

[Davian]

And that is why it is so great so many people have smart phones with cameras on them so that a miracle could be recorded for all to see. But alas, it seems miracles decided to stop happening after the invention of the camera, but they do seem to have made somewhat of a comeback after Photoshop was developed. Hmm, I wonder why that happened

And don't forget those late night infomercials.

Peter Popoff's Miracle Spring Water - YouTube

 

[variant]

Can you come up with a definition for the supernatural? Then we'll see if anyone disagrees with your definition.

I don't think the word means anything, so It's not my responsibility.

If I were to supply you with the kind of definition I thought meant something I would be arguing against myself, and I am not obliged to do so.

The idea of evidence requires that you can tell the difference between whether your ideas are true or if they are false, so tell me what it looks like when supernatural things are true verses what it looks like when we have an unexplained natural phenomena. How do we tell the difference?

 

[Paradoxum]

I guess you're saying that there is no such thing as a miracle, that miracles are impossible, because they can be explained with the natural or even if it they can't be explained with the natural now, maybe in the future they will be explained.

Well I doubt miracles exist, but I can't say that I know they are impossible. I explained my reasoning in my previous post.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The problem with the question is two fold.

One, the term 'supernatural phenomenon' is too vague.

Two, the term 'prove' is rather loose as well. What is 'proof' of Juliet's love to Romeo may not convince his parents. What is proof to a conspiracy theorist is not so convincing to a scientist or even a prosecuting attorney.

 

[Davian]

The problem with the question is two fold.

One, the term 'supernatural phenomenon' is too vague.

Two, the term 'prove' is rather loose as well. What is 'proof' of Juliet's love to Romeo may not convince his parents. What is proof to a conspiracy theorist is not so convincing to a scientist or even a prosecuting attorney.

Three, lack of proof.

Let me google that for you

Proof - "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."