[Gerben42]

Quote

I pointed out before how Uri Geller convinced millions by apparently bending a spoon with his mind. Yet, to my knowledge, not a single instance exists where paranormal activity has been successfully repeated in a controlled setting. It is not so clear to me that any so-called miracle has been scrupuoulsy examined in a laboratory setting and found valid.

This is a common theme. When you are a magician, people know that they are being tricked and will pay attention. For some reason, they tend to believe anything from those who claim to be mediums, psychic or in some other way supernatural.

Magic tricks shown in the "next Uri Geller" show are sometimes so simple that a real magician would be ashamed to try something like it. But people buy it because perhaps they want to believe in something supernatural.

[Winstonm]

Quote

but you see, this is not good reasoning... can i not say the opposite thing, that it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason? 


precisely luke warm

Edited comments in reply above.

On a completely unrelated note, I brought the following forward from another thread:

Quote

The point I was making is that everyone uses their world view to evaluate new data, and sometimes that means that you can rationally ignore new data. And hence that ignoring a fact that doesnt fit into your world view =/= closed minded.

I submit your Einstein example does not validate your point - what Einstein ignored was not "new data" or "fact" to begin with - he ignored non-factual bad data.

Ignoring a fact that doesn't fit your worldview would be better exemplified by the reaction of the Catholic Church and new data about the orbital paths of planets.

[Winstonm]

Quote

if miracles exist they represent always an act of free will on the part of God. Free will is always unpredictable.

Phil,

Let's take the case of Padre Pio that you argue (I think) is a valid miracle. I would counter that producing wounds would be either A) a reward for holiness or B) a punishment for non-belief or C) ( as you point out) an attempt by God to validate himself to man.

In cases A and B there is motivation to chose a particular recipient/victim, but in C there is no valid reason why Pio was chosen instead of Al Pacino or George Burns.

If your argument is correct that God is exerting free will then free will is arbitrary and capricious in nature, and it then follows that God's miracles are arbitrary and capricious in nature which contradicts the concept a perfectly just God (who would certainly never act capriciously) and invalidates the internal logic of most theists claims about the nature of God.

That leaves either A or B as the valid response. But if there is either reward or punishment in life for actions, that is an attempt to modify the choices made by free will.

[y66]

I do not understood why people attempt to apply logic to problems like this one. Somebody should do a poll to see how many of these people are men and how many have ever been married for more than 10 years.

[kenberg]

I am a man and my wife has put up with me for more than 10 years. Now there is a miracle!

[Winstonm]

Quote

I do not understood why people attempt to apply logic to problems like this one.

Simply for the sake of argument.

[PassedOut]

I married a nice atheist girl and we're still together after 28 years. Don't have to discuss such stuff.

[y66]

In Babette's Feast, shortly after General Loewenheilm recognizes the Cailles en Sarcophage, he says

Quote

Mercy and truth have met together. Righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another. Man, in his weakness and shortsightness, believe he must make choices in this life. He trembles at the risks he takes. We do know fear. But no. Our choice is of no importance. There comes a time when your eyes are opened. And we come to realize that mercy is infinite.We need only await it with confidence, and receive it with gratitude. Mercy imposes no conditions. And, lo! Everything we have chosen has been granted to us, and everything have rejected has also been granted. Yes, we even get back what we rejected. For mercy and truth are met together; and righteousness and bliss shall kiss one another.

Yeah, that was fiction. Still, I believe moments like the ones in that scene happen every now and then and that they are indeed miraculous. Good food helps.

[Codo]

Miracles are things that happen and can't be explained with our wisdom.

Am I right so far?

So for people who lived in the 18. century a car had been a miracle.

So if we have a miracle, what will happen:
Scientist try to explain miracles, they see it as a challenge. Surely some miracles from this century can be explained by the wisdom of comming generations.
Some churches try to show the Greatness of God because of this miracle.
Both is understandable if you try to look at it through their eyes.

Belive what you want.

I had my own little miracles in my life. Maybe it had been just pure luck. Gerben will belive so and he is welcommed to do so.
To me they had been little signs from God. Can I prove that they are signs and not just luck? Of course not, no way. But no need to do so either.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 2 2010, 10:11 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 2 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason?

The fallacy of your statement is that it is not enough to simply believe in the possibility of extrarodinary methods as explanations for miracles, but one must also assume that a particular event was acted upon by this extraordinary power. No such dual belief is required to reject the claim.

there you go again... there is no fallacy in my statement... and fwiw i've been married 30 years to the same woman (to answer another poster)

[kenberg]

Codo, on May 3 2010, 02:18 AM, said:

Miracles are things that happen and can't be explained with our wisdom.

Am I right so far?

No, not as I see it anyway. I argued earlier that since I don't accept the existence of a Divine Being, my non-belief in miracles is automatic. If I were to take your way of thinking of miracles, I would then say of course I believe in miracles. There are many things that I cannot explain, and more than a few things that no one can explain.

I am not trying for a mere semantic point here. When people speak seriously about miracles (rather than the colloquial, such as "That contract was so stupid it was a miracle that I escaped for minus 300") I think they include some sort of divine interpretation.

But, perhaps at least, I agree on the general thrust of your post. If someone wants to say " Regardless of the physical explanation, it's a miracle that we exist at all to contemplate the possibilities" I would not quarrel all that much. I prefer the more religiously neutral "Beats me how it all happened" but we can all agree that the creation of the universe was, to quote our vice-president, a big fucking deal.

[Codo]

Ken nice to read your points (as usual).
Here in Germany the catholic church is in search for miracles, the lutherian is not. So for me -living in the lutherian north- the connection between church and miracle is not as big as it is in most other parts of the world.
But I think that your view represents the majority view much closer then mine.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 3 2010, 05:12 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 2 2010, 10:11 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 2 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason?

The fallacy of your statement is that it is not enough to simply believe in the possibility of extrarodinary methods as explanations for miracles, but one must also assume that a particular event was acted upon by this extraordinary power. No such dual belief is required to reject the claim.

there you go again... there is no fallacy in my statement... and fwiw i've been married 30 years to the same woman (to answer another poster)

Right. I always forget that a witty reparte' quality in an assertion makes it valid. Likewise, the non-intervention of a extraordinary being while I write this sentence is proof of that being using its free will.

I guess for the dyslexic theist that proof would be "The god who didn't bark in the night" argument.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 3 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 3 2010, 05:12 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 2 2010, 10:11 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 2 2010, 09:57 AM, said:

it is the disbelief in miracles that leads one to reject a supernatural reason?

The fallacy of your statement is that it is not enough to simply believe in the possibility of extrarodinary methods as explanations for miracles, but one must also assume that a particular event was acted upon by this extraordinary power. No such dual belief is required to reject the claim.

there you go again... there is no fallacy in my statement... and fwiw i've been married 30 years to the same woman (to answer another poster)

Right. I always forget that a witty reparte' quality in an assertion makes it valid. Likewise, the non-intervention of a extraordinary being while I write this sentence is proof of that being using its free will.

I guess for the dyslexic theist that proof would be "The god who didn't bark in the night" argument.

you really need to stop, you're embarrassing yourself

[mikeh]

One of the many problems that impair the reasoning of those who believe in miracles is that they somehow feel that the untestability of the proposition that there is a god makes it a 50-50 proposition: that since science cannot definitively prove that there is no god, the evidence has to be accepted as being neutral on the subject. Then it is a choice...and they choose to believe.

This is stupid: not silly...stupid. In a courtroom, for instance, we accept as fact anything proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, and anything proved on a balance of probabilites, in civl cases. Why? Because we realize that absolute proof of some things is simply not possible. And that that situation does not make every alternative equally valid. We weigh the evidence: all of it.

The fact that science so far can't answer every question is not an argument for a god. it is an argument for spending more intellectual effort and resources towards moving science forward. The history of science and religion (aka the belief in god) is one in which, at the beginning of the scientific method, most people accepted god as the answer and science had almost no answers to anything. Then as human understanding, rather than human superstition, increased, the areas of the universe that allowed for a supernatural 'explanation' decreased and those susceptible to scientific evidence increased.

It is a fallacy to point to the remaining areas of mystery and proclaim that such are the proof of god. They are, far more probably, proof that we haven't learned everything yet. And we have several hundred years of increasing knowledge and diminishing ignorance/religious explanations for physical phenonema that point quite persuasively to that situation.

Thus while science cannot rule out some form of god entity, it is simply a revelation of ignorance for anyone to argue that the probability that a god is the answer is of equal weight to the contrary.

I also see it as astounding arrogance mixed with stupidity and an avoidance of history for people to proclaim not merely that a god is the answer, but that it is their particular god, who has to be adored and worshipped according to their particular set of myths, and rituals. I would have thought that the sheer number of contradictory religions over time, let alone those currently prevalent, would have sounded some alarm bells. However, once one realizes the nature of organized religion, the reaons why believers remain so credulous becomes more understandable, tho sad.

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on May 4 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

I also see it as astounding arrogance mixed with stupidity and an avoidance of history for people to proclaim not merely that a god is the answer, but that it is their particular god, who has to be adored and worshipped according to their particular set of myths, and rituals. I would have thought that the sheer number of contradictory religions over time, let alone those currently prevalent, would have sounded some alarm bells.

Yes, one would think so, but a heavy counter-balance is the power of wishful thinking. Although people who believe in god are dead wrong, it doesn't really matter to me so long as they don't use religion to oppress others.

[mikeh]

PassedOut, on May 4 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

mikeh, on May 4 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

I also see it as astounding arrogance mixed with stupidity and an avoidance of history for people to proclaim not merely that a god is the answer, but that it is their particular god, who has to be adored and worshipped according to their particular set of myths, and rituals. I would have thought that the sheer number of contradictory religions over time, let alone those currently prevalent, would have sounded some alarm bells.

Yes, one would think so, but a heavy counter-balance is the power of wishful thinking. Although people who believe in god are dead wrong, it doesn't really matter to me so long as they don't use religion to oppress others.

I agree entirely, but the problem is that the nature of religion requires that at least many of its proponents HAVE to coerce others, in one way or another.

Religions die. No one today worships the sun as a god. No one tears out the hearts of captured warriors in order to ensure a harvest. Those religions failed, as did the vast majority of religions.

Ironically, religions have arguably evolved and today's religions have developed powerful techniques that have allowed them to survive and prosper. These include:

1. create an us and them attitude: we are going to be saved, they will go to hell. We empathize with 'us' and dislike 'them'. The same approach is used by politicians and the media.

2. Punish those who leave the church: ostracize them, or even (Islam) kill them.

3. Get them young: childrens' minds are highly impressionable and incapable of critical thinking, so get them young (Sunday school, madrasah, etc)

4. Get them in groups: adults in a group environment, surrounded by a mono-culture of belief, can be converted by behaviours that they would consider aberrant if encountered in isolation: ever watch video of revival meetings, or other evangelical events?

5. Scare/entice them: since there are matters we can't know about, since we are aware of our mortality, since we fear death....hold out the illusion of a life after death, and the prospect of heaven or the fear of hell, and you have a powerful argument that can overcome rational thought.

And these techniques are aimed at one thing: the survival of the church....and as with any potentially immortal entity, that requires growth. Since the secular world is advancing and increasing, religions need to keep pace and, preferably, outpace the secular. Christianity, in the more advanced parts of the world, other than the US, is losing that battle, but Islam, a younger and more brutal religion, appears to be winning. it is no coincidence that it carries many of the religious characteristics to extremes, by comparison to Christianity. Killing apostates is the clearest indicator of this.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on May 4 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

This is stupid: not silly...stupid. In a courtroom, for instance, we accept as fact anything proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, and anything proved on a balance of probabilites, in civl cases. Why? Because we realize that absolute proof of some things is simply not possible. And that that situation does not make every alternative equally valid. We weigh the evidence: all of it.

assuming for the sake of argument that the resurrection of Jesus went to civil court, how do you think a jury would find based on the preponderence of evidence?

Quote

The fact that science so far can't answer every question is not an argument for a god.

i don't personally remember making such an argument; you can refresh my memory if i have

Quote

It is a fallacy to point to the remaining areas of mystery and proclaim that such are the proof of god.

see above

Quote

Thus while science cannot rule out some form of god entity, it is simply a revelation of ignorance for anyone to argue that the probability that a god is the answer is of equal weight to the contrary.

what would it take, in your opinion, for the existence of God to be ruled out?

Quote

I also see it as astounding arrogance mixed with stupidity and an avoidance of history for people to proclaim not merely that a god is the answer, but that it is their particular god, who has to be adored and worshipped according to their particular set of myths, and rituals.

me too

PassedOut, on May 4 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

Although people who believe in god are dead wrong

based upon what?

Quote

it doesn't really matter to me so long as they don't use religion to oppress others

i agree, it's my belief that oppression has no place in religion, whether that oppression is of non-believers or even of other beliefs

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on May 4 2010, 02:46 PM, said:

i agree, it's my belief that oppression has no place in religion, whether that oppression is of non-believers or even other beliefs

And I agree that religious people should not be oppressed by the non-religious either, as has certainly been done by communist regimes.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 4 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

assuming for the sake of argument that the resurrection of Jesus went to civil court, how do you think a jury would find based on the preponderence of evidence?

I think that this depends an awful lot on where you convened said jury...

I'd expect a very different verdict in, say, Tokyo or Stockholm than I would in the Bible Belt.

With this said and done, if folks were ruling strictly on hard evidence, I'd be shocked if any credible jury was able to find in favor of the resurrection.