Mad Kally

Call the men in the white coats. He really does think he's in Disneyuniverse.

HRG

Careful. Your hypothetical example assumes that all the events E1 etc. really happened. Koy assumes that he perceived something which could be interpreted as evidence that the events happened, but prefers to look first for naturalistic explanations for his perceptions.

It's the same procedure that you observe when David Copperfield makes an elephant disappear in front of your very eyes.

IOW, Koy would not believe that the actual facts are as you describe them.

Regards,
HRG.

Ender

I hope you don't mind, Koy.... *pops knuckles*

I’d pay attention and ask him a few tough questions.
No big deal. I make bets with friends all the time. Sometimes, I win! I can tell the future too.

• I’d investigate those events – but I’m shit out of luck. Since human nature is to always infer that any event in question has a natural cause and not miraculous, there’s no way anybody can have an “evidentially justified belief” in any particular event whatsoever.

• See above.

• See above.

• See above.

• See above.

Incorrect, my misguided theist. No such ‘miracle’ is sufficient to overturn human nature in formulating that whatever event had a natural cause. In addition, no matter the profoundity of the event in question, one cannot upchuck his or her entire cache of experience over a single report of witnessing such purported miracle, nor can he infer it from reason, nor is there sensory evidence to corroborate this ‘miracle.’ So you are very much stuck in the same boat with the rest of us skeptics- the problem is that you haven’t been able to realize how much of a factor ‘human nature’ plays in the part of miracles- (wish fulfillment) as well as why the uniform theory of nature rules out any possible investigation in a particular event. Look it up sometime.
What facts? Your strawcase is based on hearsay- as well as individual events that do not cohere with the entire body of one’s experience/are unrepeatable, ergo no verification can come in play/ nor have any logic to them.
False. This is yet another sterling example why fundamentalists such as you yourself are incapable of seeing simple reason, logic, or make illegitimate evidentiary arguments without corrupting them with presumptuous claims to petty faith of your own creation. Own up to your active part in the creation of your faith- analyze it- only then will you realize that all this "gluttonous love of mental punishment" is a symptom of your slave morality.
NEXT!

~WiGGiN~
(((herribul grummah)))

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Ender the Theothanatologist ]</p>

Buckster

Koy, I've just discovered that there is indeed a supreme being, and YOU are it!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Seriously though, considering that Thomas supposedly saw first-hand all the things JC did and still doubted; Considering that Judas supposedly saw all the things JC did first-hand and still sold the dude's ass for 30 pieces of silver; Considering Peter supposedly saw all the things JC did first-hand and still denied even knowing the dude; Considering that supposedly many, many thousands saw all the things JC did first-hand, and still the following apparently was quite small until Saul/Paul worked on it extensivly...

Why in the world would I believe it 2000 years later, when they couldn't even fully pull it off in their own day, 2000 years ago?

Reeeeeeeeeeediculous.

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Buckster ]</p>

Draygomb

Having read people's minds, accurately seen the future (sometimes years in advance) and having astrally projected myself, I feel qualified to say that magic and miracles don't prove the existence of god, only logic can do that.

In order to prove god one must logically prove that god could exist and that god must exist.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

HRG,

True. It simply states:

What if you met somebody TODAY who...
E1 actually happened (repeatedly healed people)
E2 actually happened (rose somebody from the dead)
E3 actually happened (died...came back to life)
yadda, yadda, yadda

I am not saying...'What the bible says about Jeebus is true!' or 'If some funky stuff happened why wouldn't you interpret it as Jeezus?!'

I am simply asking, 'What if these things REALLY happened to you today? How would this affect your world view?'


The fact that someone could view these ACTUAL events and still declare there is no God seems completely orthagonal to what 'free-thinking' actually is...unbiased reasoning.


If one was really unbiased they would let the facts dictate their world view...not the other way around.

Comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Wyrdsmyth

Since these are all hypothetical situations, the point is moot. There are no miracles. There are just people who perceive miracles. That's the default position.

That's why we'll never see amputees magically regrowing limbs live on TV while someone chants "in Jesus name" or "praise Allah" over the still-regenerating appendage. Sure, you'll hear testimony from some doctor that a broken bone mysteriously healed, but you'll never get the big, overt thing.

People will claim the "dead" come back to life, as in when someone's heart stops on an operating table and he is brought back a few minutes later. But you'll never see someone dig up a corpse that's been in the grave for a year and bring it back to life. Why? Because that's really dead -- not legally dead just because his heart stopped for a few minutes.

All mystics, holy men, fakirs and so forth... they're all like John Edwards on that "Crossing Over" show. If you want to see firsthand how people can buy into such a flim-flam, watch that show -- it's very instructive about human nature.

Logic can never prove God or gods. Logic, metaphysics and arguments, for all their worth in clarifying our thoughts -- they're just words. Most religions are built upon phenomena, actual events occurring in the world, with evidence that allegedly verifies them. Later, apologists use philosophical arguments to try to justify their religions on a more intellectual level. But these high-flying, metaphysical arguments are never the basic justification for any religion. The basis is emotion, phenomena, excitement... I can't get rid of the image of a John Edwards-type character being followed around by a bunch of bored, fat housewives and a couple of ditzy celebrities.

Religions begin with some holy man or prophet or mystic who claims to hear voices in the air or have some kind of powers... who has believers and followers who SWEAR that he has done miraculous things. Do we get to see these miraculous things? Well, no. But we have the testimony! We can read about it! Isn't that enough!

TollHouse

SOMMS, I'd be extremely interested to hear your response to Koy's excellent question:



Well? Would you believe this second-hand account? Why not?

Mad Kally

Koy: Who the hell is the Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo?

haha.. Panta Pei, how do you think it feels to have hot coffee shoot out of your nose?

Jayhawker Soule

Which one?