Family Man

Polycarp --

Is it, or it is not, your argument that there is a set of miracles out there that the skeptic cannot prove is false and it would be extraordinary for all of them to be wrong? And that this is an argument for God?

And if the answer for the second question is no, then why have you been wasting our time? I responded to a question from you that implied that God would be able to do clear supernatural acts. Since then, you've done everything except support the contention I orginally responded to (which, of course, is why I find your contention that I'm redirecting the topic hilarious, since I've been entirely consistent -- it's you who have been all over the board here.)

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: DennisM ]</p>

Family Man

Oh, and a reminder Polycarp. This is the questions you posed that I responded to. You attempt to shift the burden (and the topic) to the "extraordinary" claims of atheists came later.


In short, the only person redirecting the topic here is you. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Daggah

Wouldn't that be a definition that is also too broad? What if it were proven that there are people who have the capability to levitate above the ground without the aid of any sort of technology? Would they not be gods? They possess "supernatural" power, and are capable of performing an act in clear violation of natural law (gravity).

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by DennisM: Oh, and a reminder Polycarp. This is the questions you posed that I responded to. You attempt to shift the burden (and the topic) to the "extraordinary" claims of atheists came later.

Let’s review the path we’ve travelled…

Lowder posed the question, “Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?”

I countered with a two sentence post questioning whether or not someone who was claiming “no god exists” would be making an extraordinary claim.

Various conversations ensued until our connection in which we seemed to agree on a definition of “god”.

You then asserted that you would believe in the existence of god if you were to witness a violation of natural laws (miracle). I didn’t say this. This was your argument against the existence of god. In effect, “no miracles equal no god” and “miracles equal god”. You stated that no miracles have ever occurred.

I then countered by saying that you were making an extraordinary claim in saying that you knew hundreds of miracle claims to be false. This, despite the fact that many miracle claims have been verified by reputable and sane people (e.g. Hume’s example).

You replied by simply asserting the following on 12-23-01 @ 9:33PM:

Quote:

“but seeing how that (sic) are no proven miracle claims, and miracle claims are routinely rejected by educated men, there are no good reasons to accept any of them.”

In effect, you were saying that “educated men” reject all miracle claims. I offered to provide a list of “educated men” who are/were convinced of miracles. I think we both know the truth in this regard. You swept aside Hume’s story with a reference to David Copperfield. Giving hearing to the deaf and sight to the blind is completely different than modern magicians.

This is what you said on 12-20-01 @ 7:05PM in regard to what it would take for you to believe in the existence of god(s):

Quote:

“However, you'd have to show that both such a being exists and that he has those powers. And it would have to be a undeniably clear demonstration -- something on the order of limbs regrowing, not temporary cures of arthritis. So, yes, I think the universe is devoid of gods, for I certainly don't see clear violations of natural laws, much less a being that causes them.”

So… the argument goes like this based on what YOU said it would take for YOU to believe in the existence of “god”. I never said this is what it would take for me to believe in god, this is only an argument based on your criteria.

If M, then G
No M, therefore no G.

(M=Miracle, G=God)

The problem I have, and the reason I say you are making an extraordinary claim, is that you are saying of the hundreds (thousands?) of miracle claims made, some by very intelligent, sane, people of integrity, you believe every single one of them to be false. This is why I pushed the issue of firsthand witnessing of a miracle. I don’t think you’d ever believe a miracle claim unless you saw it for yourself. If this is the case, then you shouldn’t go to internet discussion boards asking people to prove the existence of miracles. And if you would believe in miracles on the basis of another person’s testimony, then why do you reject the testimony of a person like David Hume?

I think this should cover the most recent questions you posed to me. So, I would say that based on the criteria you’ve set up for belief in god, you are making an extraordinary claim by rejecting ALL miracles. If even one miracle were to be true, then you would be forced to believe in god (using your standards). Maybe you meant to say there could be violations of natural laws without a god. If so, I never saw an indication of such a thing. I hope this helps to clarify things.

Peace,

Polycarp

Apikorus

Polycarp, as I said, you can find educated people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, to have lived past lives, to have witnessed miracles, to be able to speak with the dead, to have powers of extrasensory perception, etc. What are we to do with all these claims?

If the claim is based on a singular and nonfalsifiable event (e.g. I was alone in my room and Jesus came to me in the flesh, or I was abducted by aliens for several days but no apparent time interval transpired in my earthly frame of reference), then it is very difficult to assess its veracity. Yet it simply is a fact that people can become delusional, and it seems sensible that we should be skeptical over such bizarre and nonfalsifiable claims.

If, on the other hand, the claim is based on a continuing connection to some paranormal field (e.g. I can accurately describe hidden objects, or Through prayer, I can invoke God to cancel physical law) then one can hope to design a test.

Since many claims of miracles center on miraculous healings, I think it important to say a few words about this. It can scarcely be denied that there is a significant connection between mind and body. Recovery from major illnesses or surgery is often facilitated by a sense of optimism and hope. Therefore, I would not be surprised if prayer had a measurable positive outcome in recovery from illness. I think it might even help if a patient merely believes that others are praying for him. What I do not believe, and what has never been convincingly demonstrated, is that remote, secret prayer has any effect at all.

Another thing to remember about illness and recovery is that the human body is extremely complex and every so often something extremely unexpected happens (for good or bad) that seems to defy medical explanation. Given the complexity inherent in living beings, I think a clearer test of the power of prayer might be to direct one's prayers toward simple physical systems which are thoroughly understood and accurately measurable. This is why I propose an experiment to see if prayer has any measurable effects on gravity, or on the lifetimes of excited atomic states, or a host of other potential tests. Do you believe that prayer can affect gravity?

To assert that God's existence or nonexistence is "extraordinary" seems to betray a misunderstanding of what "extraordinary" means. Inasmuch as it does mean "out of the ordinary", it very much relies on a context - that of the "ordinary". There is no such context applicable to the question of God's existence, so it is silly to persist in these word games.

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Sauron

No, the problem you have is that you lack evidence for miracles. You even identify the root cause of the weakness of your case:

And if you would believe in miracles on the basis of another person’s testimony,

You still don't seem to understand that personal testimony is insufficient, because of the fantastic nature of the claim being made. Personal testimony is also known to be flawed, and riddled with inconsistencies. If you cannot rise to the standard of scientifically verifiable evidence, then why not just say so at the start?

In addition, pointing out that many thousands of people have believed in miracles does not support your position, for the following reasons:

• There are tens of thousands of Muslims, Hindus, etc. who claim to have seen a miracle. If sheer numbers matter, then we have to accept their claims as well;
• as a general principle, large numbers of people can be convinced of very erroneous things. It happens all the time. The number of individuals who believe in space aliens (today) or witches and black cats (300 years ago) is very large;
• One of the characteristics of all these claims, regardless of what religion they originate from, is that they are uniformly (a) unfalsifiable; (b)not observable or testable;
  (c) better explained by natural events, confusion, or deceit/fraud;
• past investigations of such miracle claims have never resulted in a verifiable supernatural act. Thus your complaint that you are making an extraordinary claim by rejecting ALL miracles is a baseless complaint. When all previous claims for leprechauns have resulted in zero leprechauns, then one may safely and honestly reject future claims for the existence of leprechauns.
  

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur: Read any Bishop Spong, BTW?

Yes, I'm also quite bored with this whole topic. There's no need to apologize for leaving the conversation. I'd rather talk about Jesus the
mushroom-cult leader, or about how the rift between Paul and James developed because of their breakup as homosexual lovers.

I've read portions of "Why Christianity Must Change or Die?" and "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism", but neither in their entirety. I agree with Spong on very little.

Peace,

Edna Gardner

Gurdur

Out of serious interest, what do you agree with Spong on, Polycarp?

____________

BTW, don't you think a "Tim" should be proud of the name?

Scrutinizer

I haven't read any of Spong's books, but I watched him on TV while he was down here being interviewed and having questions asked of him by an audience.

There are quite a few points on which I agree with Spong. Firstly, his statement "your God is too small". I know that's nothing new, but a lot of people do tend to trap God. He also commented on the titles such as "most venerable" and "your Beatitude" and "the revered" when referring to the hierarchical church structure, and asked how we could ever hope to convince anyone that we are in a servant ministry when we have priests seated in thrones with fancy titles and regal robes. I agree with him there, as well.

I'll have to sit down one day and read a couple of his books.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

hezekiah jones

Yes, I have been trying to lure "god" into my little jerry-rigged, irreducibly complex god-trap with a piece of metaphysical cheese for as long as I can remember. Still, not even the faintest hint of a nibble.