Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas II · 08-18-2005, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Christians often accuse skeptics of being predisposed against the existence of miracles. Skeptics are in fact predisposed against occurrences of miracles because there is no evidence that any have ever occurred, but any skeptic would love for miracles to be available to help us with our many burdens. If I thought that there was only a 10% chance that miracles exist, I would go out of my way to prove that they do exist. I am defining miracles as events that are beyond the abilities of humans, and made possible by an extra-terrestrial being for the express purpose of benefiting humans.

Matthew 14:14 says “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.�? We need compassion today just as much as people did back then. Today, since there is no evidence that God is compassionate in tangible ways (his allowance of the recent tsunami in Asia is most certainly not an example of compassion), it is reasonable to assume that he never was compassionate in tangible ways.

The part about "extra-terrestrial beings" is confusing to me...What ETs?
Miracles I would see more like a magical event. Example,Jesus spits on the ground,makes a little mud with it between his fingers, and saying some words he applies it to the sick person's eyes. Shazam! The guy recovers his vision!
Sometimes it is the words alone,sort of like an incantation or a spell.
It is a form of energy emanating from the healer which is transmitted to the healed. In the gospels there is even an account of a person touching Jesus'
robe as he passed by and being healed by such action. Jesus even remarks that he felt the energy going to the healed person...
I am not opposed to that concept since I think we are all energy fields and I consider possible that one strong energy field could strengthen a weaker one by such transference of energy. I have heard of some healers who's hands get very warm when they are allegedly healing. Having said that, the fact that I consider the possibility does not establish by necessity the certainty.

Splarnst · 08-18-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Whether an appearance was made by a God or an advanced alien, no one could tell the difference, and no one would care as long as such a being provided them with a comfortable eternal life.

For no one to care about the difference, there has to be a difference for them to care about. By saying that no one would care, you are admitting that there is a difference.

Johnny Skeptic · 08-18-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Whether an appearance was made by a God or an advanced alien, no one could tell the difference, and no one would care as long as such a being provided them with a comfortable eternal life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idisto

For no one to care about the difference, there has to be a difference for them to care about. By saying that no one would care, you are admitting that there is a difference.

No one could tell the difference even if there was a difference. All that would matter would be the availablity of a comfortable eternal life whether the provider claimed to be a God or an advanced alien.

There is no need for a game of semantics regarding what the word "miracle" means. We currently have no way of obtaining eternal comfort, and anyone who could deliver it would be gladly accepted whether or not they claimed to be a God.

Killer Mike · 08-18-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Christians often accuse skeptics of being predisposed against the existence of miracles. Skeptics are in fact predisposed against occurrences of miracles because there is no evidence that any have ever occurred, but any skeptic would love for miracles to be available to help us with our many burdens. If I thought that there was only a 10% chance that miracles exist, I would go out of my way to prove that they do exist. I am defining miracles as events that are beyond the abilities of humans, and made possible by an extra-terrestrial being for the express purpose of benefiting humans.

Matthew 14:14 says “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.�? We need compassion today just as much as people did back then. Today, since there is no evidence that God is compassionate in tangible ways (his allowance of the recent tsunami in Asia is most certainly not an example of compassion), it is reasonable to assume that he never was compassionate in tangible ways.

History is filled with "miracle workers". In fact every miracle Jesus was said to have done had been performed by previous miracle workers. Mary was not the only female to have had a miraculous birth of some type. Others before Jesus also healed the sick. Its more reasonable to ascribe them to mythology then to history. I mean does anyone really believe Jonah was swollowed by that whale? :Cheeky:

Huon · 08-18-2005, 10:03 AM

Miracles are one of three possibilities :

1 - They are fakes, magic well executed.
2 - Or they exist only in the imagination of the witnesses.
3 - Or they have natural causes, which we did not catch, but these causes exist, because nothing exists, nothing happens without a natural cause.

These statements are the summary of a book written around 1520 by a certain Pomponazzi. The book was published only in 1556 after the death of Pomponazzi, title :
De naturalium effectuum admirandorum causis, seu De Incantationibus liber.
About the causes of admirable natural effects, or the book of the Incantations.

Pomponazzi was probably afraid of burning on a stake, and I will not criticize him for that.

There is also a work of Cicero, intitulated "De divinatione" which says the same things. That means also that miracles belong to other religions known to Cicero, but these religions have no believers presently.

Dark Virtue · 08-18-2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter since no one could tell the difference, nor would anyone, including Christians, care if they could tell the difference as long as an alien being provided them with a comfortable eternal life.

I think you need to watch a few episodes of Stargate.

Dark Virtue · 08-18-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas II

The part about "extra-terrestrial beings" is confusing to me...What ETs?
Miracles I would see more like a magical event. Example,Jesus spits on the ground,makes a little mud with it between his fingers, and saying some words he applies it to the sick person's eyes. Shazam! The guy recovers his vision!
Sometimes it is the words alone,sort of like an incantation or a spell.
It is a form of energy emanating from the healer which is transmitted to the healed. In the gospels there is even an account of a person touching Jesus'
robe as he passed by and being healed by such action. Jesus even remarks that he felt the energy going to the healed person...
I am not opposed to that concept since I think we are all energy fields and I consider possible that one strong energy field could strengthen a weaker one by such transference of energy. I have heard of some healers who's hands get very warm when they are allegedly healing. Having said that, the fact that I consider the possibility does not establish by necessity the certainty.

I've wondered about this myself.

Why did Jesus have to combine his spit and dirt to make mud? Was the mud then magical? Why would he even need to wave his hand across the blind man's eyes? Magicians do that for showmanship or for distraction. Wouldn't a mere thought be enough to heal him?

Johnny Skeptic · 08-18-2005, 10:57 AM

My main argument is that no skeptic would be opposed to any being who wanted to help us with our many burdens, whether such a being claimed to be a God or claimed to be an alien.

What skeptic wouldn't want to have Samantha Stevens (from the TV series 'Bewitched') as a close friend?

Alethias · 08-18-2005, 12:38 PM

I have no problem with miracles as defined by your OP as long as they were repeatable and verifiable under accepted scientific review.

I found another definiton of Miracle that seems to be common, and I believe this definition is accepted by the catholic church: An event beyond the power of any creature. It cannot be produced by any human power—physical, emotional or mental. It happens in a religious setting and can be recognized as intended by God to be a sign. When someone claims a miracle, it must be proven that there is no natural explanation. The last sentence of that "When someone claims a miracle, it must be proven that there is no natural explanation." removes it from any possibility of Scientific Validation, so as a skeptic i'd have a problem with this. Also, in the hypothetical situation of an alien that just wants to do good for us, i'd have grave doubts. It's extremely rare for anything to come free, and i'd wonder what's in it for the alien. I'd want to understand that before accepting the alien gratitude.

Doesn't it confuse things to use definitions that stray from commonly accepted, normative definitions?

Johnny Skeptic · 08-18-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwordOfTruth

I have no problem with miracles as defined by your OP as long as they were repeatable and verifiable under accepted scientific review.

I found another definiton of Miracle that seems to be common, and I believe this definition is accepted by the catholic church:

An event beyond the power of any creature. It cannot be produced by any human power—physical, emotional or mental. It happens in a religious setting and can be recognized as intended by God to be a sign. When someone claims a miracle, it must be proven that there is no natural explanation. The last sentence of that "When someone claims a miracle, it must be proven that there is no natural explanation." removes it from any possibility of Scientific Validation, so as a skeptic i'd have a problem with this. Also, in the hypothetical situation of an alien that just wants to do good for us, i'd have grave doubts. It's extremely rare for anything to come free, and i'd wonder what's in it for the alien. I'd want to understand that before accepting the alien gratitude.

Doesn't it confuse things to use definitions that stray from commonly accepted, normative definitions?

Actually, properly defining miracles is not necessary for purposes of this thread. Regarding "it must be proven that there is no natural explanation," if a being comes to earth and provides people with a comfortable, perceived eternal life, most people, including a good percentage of Christians, wouldn't care what his true identity was. Following this same line of reasoning, if you had cancer, and a cure was available from an unknown source, you would gladly accept the cure.

08-18-2005, 10:57 AM	#18
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Miracles My main argument is that no skeptic would be opposed to any being who wanted to help us with our many burdens, whether such a being claimed to be a God or claimed to be an alien. What skeptic wouldn't want to have Samantha Stevens (from the TV series 'Bewitched') as a close friend?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-18-2005, 10:03 AM	#15
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Miracles are one of three possibilities : 1 - They are fakes, magic well executed. 2 - Or they exist only in the imagination of the witnesses. 3 - Or they have natural causes, which we did not catch, but these causes exist, because nothing exists, nothing happens without a natural cause. These statements are the summary of a book written around 1520 by a certain Pomponazzi. The book was published only in 1556 after the death of Pomponazzi, title : De naturalium effectuum admirandorum causis, seu De Incantationibus liber. About the causes of admirable natural effects, or the book of the Incantations. Pomponazzi was probably afraid of burning on a stake, and I will not criticize him for that. There is also a work of Cicero, intitulated "De divinatione" which says the same things. That means also that miracles belong to other religions known to Cicero, but these religions have no believers presently.

08-18-2005, 12:38 PM	#19
Alethias Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 7,198	I have no problem with miracles as defined by your OP as long as they were repeatable and verifiable under accepted scientific review. I found another definiton of Miracle that seems to be common, and I believe this definition is accepted by the catholic church: An event beyond the power of any creature. It cannot be produced by any human power—physical, emotional or mental. It happens in a religious setting and can be recognized as intended by God to be a sign. When someone claims a miracle, it must be proven that there is no natural explanation. The last sentence of that "When someone claims a miracle, it must be proven that there is no natural explanation." removes it from any possibility of Scientific Validation, so as a skeptic i'd have a problem with this. Also, in the hypothetical situation of an alien that just wants to do good for us, i'd have grave doubts. It's extremely rare for anything to come free, and i'd wonder what's in it for the alien. I'd want to understand that before accepting the alien gratitude. Doesn't it confuse things to use definitions that stray from commonly accepted, normative definitions?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.