Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
02-02-2002, 01:22 PM | #21 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 131
|
Quote:
Andrew, I highly recommend Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World." |
|
02-02-2002, 01:23 PM | #22 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: OK
Posts: 1,806
|
Quote:
The possibility of natural explanations must be ruled out as well. This would include some healing ability as yet undiscovered or even a new, natural healing ability having evolved. It would include ruling out itervention by aliens using some advanced technology, as Michael has pointed out. The possibility of delusion must be ruled out as we have ample precendent that this is also possible given the right circumstances. And of course evidence suitable for critical analysis must be presented to verify the alleged miracle and all the circumstances surrounding it. If you can present evidence that permits all of the above, have at it. I have no idea how you'll do this on a website forum, but you are free to make the attempt. We'll all be happy to critique it for you. |
|
02-02-2002, 01:33 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: in the middle of things
Posts: 722
|
Here's a question:
If the only 'miracle' stories you read are in the context of a hypothetical or rhetorical question, would it be enough that you could no longer call yourself a theist? ~ Steve |
02-02-2002, 01:38 PM | #24 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 272
|
Quote:
Okay so now in advance to my providing evidence along the lines I suggested at least as good if not better example is anyone willing to say if they would be compelled to reconsider the statement that natural forces alone can account for all we observe? C'mon now this should be a no brainer how many times have you all stated with utmost sencerity that your atheism or naturalism is due only to the fact of lack of evidence? My counter point is quite simple. I don't think it is merely a lack of belief but a very strong fundamental belief in naturalism that is the source of disbelief. And the responses thus far have borne this out. Oh and if I can't produce evidence as good if not better than what I posted then you all can tell me my mother wears army boots . |
|
02-02-2002, 01:46 PM | #25 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Batavia, Ohio USA
Posts: 180
|
All right Andrew. Enough equivocating. Present your evidence and let us delve into it. I sure hope that this would certainly be based in the present. For, I’m sure, if it occurred in the past and was considered a miracle, we would have heard of it by now.
Evidence with adequate documentation please. At least, documentation that can be investigated and confirmed. |
02-02-2002, 01:47 PM | #26 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LALA Land in California
Posts: 3,764
|
Quote:
How sad that god never bothered with even one of my terminally ill patients.. [ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]</p> |
|
02-02-2002, 02:06 PM | #27 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Ill
Posts: 6,577
|
Quote:
I'm not sure I know what you are referring to, Steve! love Helen |
|
02-02-2002, 02:43 PM | #28 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: PA USA
Posts: 5,039
|
Quote:
(1)looking over my shoulder for the Candid Camera or (2)believing I was back in College the victim of another Psych experiment, or (3)thinking "Where's the magician?" or (4)aware that I am asleep and dreaming again. If none of the above, it's time to scrutinize the evidence. Quote:
Practicing a belief in supernaturalism is normal human behavior, but that doesn't create the supernatural. You need evidence, not hypothetical evidence, and there isn't any evidence anywhere for the existence of the supernatural. Pretty straightforward observation really. Practicing a belief in the supernatural, on the other hand, is definitely something that can be observed. I'd call this behaviorism evidence of our provincialism, as well as being an expression of other basic human characteristics. IOW "There but for the god of grace go I," and a whole lot of provincialiam sure doesn't hurt. joe |
||
02-02-2002, 02:49 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 916
|
I think some of you guys are missing the point. Andrew doesn't HAVE any evidence. I think he's just trying to get his foot in the door by getting us to say that if such evidence DID exist, would we agree that it was miraculous or supernatural.
I think the best answer I can give you, Andrew, is "no." If we rule out all known medical causes for an event such as you describe, then there are two things I would readily believe before I fell back on the supernatural: 1) There is a natural explanation that we don't yet understand 2) We had misdiagnosed the problem to begin with Of course, we can never be sure we know everything, so #1 is pretty much a catch-all. So it's going to take more than anecdotal healing stories to even pique my interest. |
02-02-2002, 05:19 PM | #30 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Michigan USA
Posts: 27
|
In answer to the original question, I for one am NOT one who says "all it would take is a little evidence, and I would believe...". On the contrary I freely admit it would take a lot, and that I would then have to be convinced I wasn't hallucinating myself.
The idea of miracles & magic tricks to amaze people is contradictory to my idea of what a rational creator would do. I am a naturalist and I assume a creator would be consistent with nature. He wouldn't set the world up to spin out of control and then selectively poke, prod, tweek, and perform miracles convicing only to the most gullible observers (this is just my line of reasoning on how arational being would behave). For those atheists who say that "all it would take is a little evidence" I agree with Andrew this seems like an incosistent claim (if the atheists in question are also naturalists). I would guess that for some this is more of a rhetorical response. Specifically, they may be trying to make the point that there is overwhelmingly NO evidence for supernatural events - and they are using rhetoric to "beg" to presented with ANY shred of convicing evidence to consider. With this I agree - for me personally the evidence is not there. For the sake of argument lets assume I am finally convinced that a creator exists. So what? This would mean nothing to me unless I learned something about the creator. Is it concious or not? Did it also have a cause? If concious, is it concerend with humans whatesoever? Did it create everything solely for humans, or are grapefruits the primary object of it's affections? What are it's intentions? It is contrary to my idea of a good god that it would expect worship from it's creations. If a god revealed itself the one way it might get respect (not worhsip) from me would be if it could answer a whole lot of tough questions, most of which could be thought up by your average 6 year old on the problems with religions and evil in the world. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|