Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theophilus · 02-04-2002, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:


love
Helen

Is this an injunction?
If not, shouldn't it be "love, Helen?"

theophilus · 02-04-2002, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew_theist:
Greetings all,

In a recent discussion I have been having I heard as I have so many times that if there was only some evidence for theism that would be all it would take for me to change my mind. I wonder if it would be that easy?

Even though I don't find this approach useful, I think Andrew does address an important point. The basic rejection of Christianity is that God has not provided "adequate" or "credible" evidence of his existence. When confronted with the question, what such evidence would be, atheists (such as Gordon Stein in his debate with Greg Bahnsen) make some demand for a supernatural intervention.
However, the objections to Andrew's miracle evidence shows that this is a disengenuous response.
So, Andrew's fundamental question is still valid, i.e., "What would it take?" Atheists just need to be more honest with themselves when answering.

HelenM · 02-04-2002, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:


Is this an injunction?
If not, shouldn't it be "love, Helen?"

No, because it's the injunction to love me

love
Helen

HelenM · 02-04-2002, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaliet:
Our response, whenever we cant explain, should be: "we cannot explain what happened" Or
"We dont know how this happened".
Pure and simple.

Thanks, jaliet

This is a good summary. Some months ago I decided to say "I don't know" rather than assert I do know, as long as I am in places where "I don't know" is not going unnecessarily discomfort others. I'm not afraid to say I don't know. I'd rather say that when I don't, than pretend I do. I might have guesses about how, but they are my own...

I was interested to know what unexplainable things you believed have actually happened...thanks for sharing.

I have no idea about the Bermuda Triangle, etc. I don't know how substantiated those stories are. Perhaps the Resurrection of Jesus is more substantiated than them; I'm not sure

.

love
Helen

David Gould · 02-04-2002, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:


Dear well-meaning friend;

As I have explained elsewhere, the significance of miracles is derived from the context in which they occur. The mere inexplicable healing of a bone, in an of itself does not constitute a miracle - merely a physical anomaly.
Now, if you had been to church on Sunday before breaking the leg and the Pastor had prophesied that you would break your leg and it would heal in one day and, without contrivance on your part, that came to pass, you'd have the beginnings of a miracle. What would still be missing would be the "explanation" of the event - which always accompanies Biblical events.
The Bible is clear that the mere occurance of a "super-natural" event does not constitute a miracle and, in fact, might be a sign of apostasy. The supernatural event must be consistent with God's revealed redemptive purpose.

Keep up the "good" work.

Theophilus,

I absolutely agree with you that withot a mythological context, any miracle claim is meaningless.

Is this a first? (that I agree with you on something

)

theophilus · 02-04-2002, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:


Now, what have we witnessed? Have we witnessed

a) an actual miracle by Jesus

b) an actual miracle by some other deity, like Odin, Ngai or Shiva, intervening for the Eff of It.

c) a random miracle caused by non-theistic supernatural intervention, like by Buddhist chants channeled through a Buddhist in the crowd

d) the outcome of the psychic power of the crowd, focused through the talisman of Jesus' name, and thus not even remotely theistic at all.

e) aliens intervening with superior technology, and thus not even a violation of naturalism.

You can see the problem. It is impossible to rule out other roots for your miracle, and thus, impossible to even conclude that it is theistic in nature, let alone one from your god.

Michael

I'm afraid you've proven more than you meant to. Since all these, or similar, questions can be pressed against any phenomenal event, life becomes utterly inexplicable unelss we presuppose God to be directing events.

I drop a ball, it falls to the floor and bounces until it comes to a rest. Does this demonstrate:
a) an actual miracle by Jesus
b) an actual miracle by some other deity, like Odin, Ngai or Shiva, intervening for the Eff of It.
c) a random miracle caused by non-theistic supernatural intervention, like by Buddhist chants channeled through a Buddhist in the crowd
d) the outcome of the psychic power of the crowd, focused through the talisman of Jesus' name, and thus not even remotely theistic at all.
e) aliens intervening with superior technology, and thus not even a violation of naturalism.

It will not do to say, as atheists normally do, that phenomena are controlled by mere physical laws. That begs the question. As an assertion, it bears the burdern of proof and, as you've so ably demonstrated, such proof is impossible.

I have been posting here for two years and you have done, in this one post, a better job than I in demonstrating that life can only be explained from a Christian starting point.

Thanks.

Vorkosigan · 02-04-2002, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:


I drop a ball, it falls to the floor and bounces until it comes to a rest. Does this demonstrate:
a) an actual miracle by Jesus
b) an actual miracle by some other deity, like Odin, Ngai or Shiva, intervening for the Eff of It.
c) a random miracle caused by non-theistic supernatural intervention, like by Buddhist chants channeled through a Buddhist in the crowd
d) the outcome of the psychic power of the crowd, focused through the talisman of Jesus' name, and thus not even remotely theistic at all.
e) aliens intervening with superior technology, and thus not even a violation of naturalism.

It will not do to say, as atheists normally do, that phenomena are controlled by mere physical laws. That begs the question. As an assertion, it bears the burdern of proof and, as you've so ably demonstrated, such proof is impossible.

Thanks.

Unfortunately, such phenomona ARE controlled by mere physical laws. Perhaps you have some evidence that something else is going on in your ball scenario? For the whole point of my example is that we witness a gross violation of the normal order of reality. In your example there is no such violation of natural law. That is the difference.

Michael

theophilus · 02-04-2002, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:


Unfortunately, such phenomona ARE controlled by mere physical laws. Perhaps you have some evidence that something else is going on in your ball scenario? For the whole point of my example is that we witness a gross violation of the normal order of reality. In your example there is no such violation of natural law. That is the difference.

Sorry, there mere assertion of controll by "mere physical laws," doesn't cut it. Where is your evidence that doesn't assume your conclusion?

How do you know that it is a gross violation of physical laws? Maybe there are physical laws you know nothing about. Physical "laws" are mere descritions of phenomenon (and not even permanent, ala gravity vs. relaitvity). If you don't understand that, you need to do a little reading in scientific philosophy.

Michael

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]

Theli · 02-04-2002, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Sorry, there mere assertion of controll by "mere physical laws," doesn't cut it. Where is your evidence that doesn't assume your conclusion?

How do you know that it is a gross violation of physical laws? Maybe there are physical laws you know nothing about. Physical "laws" are mere descritions of phenomenon (and not even permanent, ala gravity vs. relaitvity). If you don't understand that, you need to do a little reading in scientific philosophy.

So now you are going to invent some new physical laws just so your miracles can be possible?
Then tell me, how does these laws work, and how did you discover them?

Wyrdsmyth · 02-04-2002, 05:13 PM

Well, this thread has really frayed apart.

Although there are those who would be bound and determined to never interpret any event as a miracle performed by the Christian God, no matter what the context, I can't count myself in that group.

The context is very important, perhaps the most important issue in this whole thread.

If an event is astronomically unlikely, impossible, or... however we want to define what a "miracle" is... that is not the main issue. If something "miraculous" happens, without any context, it can easily mean different things to different people.

What if someone has cancer, and it unexpectedly goes into remission. The doctors cannot explain it. The cancer just seems to go away.

If the person is a devout Christian, and his family and friends have been intensively praying for his cancer to recede... and it does, they might call it a miracle.

If the person is an atheist, a skeptic, a naturalist, etc. it's likely he'll leave it as an unexplained but still natural event.

Now, is the Christian reading too much into the event, or is the atheist refusing to see divine intervention?

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]

02-04-2002, 05:13 PM	#80
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	Well, this thread has really frayed apart. Although there are those who would be bound and determined to never interpret any event as a miracle performed by the Christian God, no matter what the context, I can't count myself in that group. The context is very important, perhaps the most important issue in this whole thread. If an event is astronomically unlikely, impossible, or... however we want to define what a "miracle" is... that is not the main issue. If something "miraculous" happens, without any context, it can easily mean different things to different people. What if someone has cancer, and it unexpectedly goes into remission. The doctors cannot explain it. The cancer just seems to go away. If the person is a devout Christian, and his family and friends have been intensively praying for his cancer to recede... and it does, they might call it a miracle. If the person is an atheist, a skeptic, a naturalist, etc. it's likely he'll leave it as an unexplained but still natural event. Now, is the Christian reading too much into the event, or is the atheist refusing to see divine intervention? [ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.