Wayne Delia

It sounds Christianity-centric. Do shamans, witch-doctors, rabbis, etc. from every other non-Christian religion on earth make the claim that their god performs those specific miracles, and uses their priests to effect those miracles? Christianity makes that claim in the New Testament, but other religions should not be held up to the claims of Christianity unless they specifically make those claims themselves.

Perhaps a better approach would be similar to the James Randi Educational Foundation's million-dollar challenge for evidence or demonstrations of any kind of paranormal activity. Have the claimant and the skeptic agree in advance on the powers of the proposed deity, then design an experiment in which the results demonstrate the validity of the powers. Carry out the experiment in which controls are in place to prevent fraud or deception, and examine the results.

Applied to the Christian claims found in Mark 16:17-18, what I usually find is not merely a failed demonstration, but a spectacular lack of Christians who are even willing to attempt a demonstration. That, as others have mentioned, would indicate that the Christian doesn't even have the minimal amount of faith that they think we unbelievers ought to have.

WMD

Wyrdsmyth

Why not? Why shouldn't we put gods and supernatural beings to the test? Or, to put it another way: why shouldn't we devise tests to filter out the real from the imaginary? Do you have any reason why we shouldn't do this, or are you just parroting what someone else said?

Yes, how arrogant to want to know whether a god exists or not, and to use one's brain to try to come up with ways to test divine claims. How unreasonably arrogant I am! I should abase myself in the mud, shouldn't I? Accept all supernatural claims equally, right? No. What the hell sense does that make? See, you're wrong: I did not imply gods should 'behave exactly as I think they should.' I implied that if gods exists, then there should be some ways we can come up with to verify whether they do, or not.

Ask yourself this: What is the greater sin: to do evil or to question dogma?

Ah, there it is again. The 'theological night-cap.' How can our puny, fallible intellects understand (or question!) the supernatural? If we can't fit a square peg in a round hole, the error must not be in the shape of the objects, but in our fallible human brains! We just can't see the way they must fit together!

You give up the thousand natural shocks, yes, but also the thousand natural pleasures.

What is wrong with euthanasia, or suicide? I have no problem with it, in the many cases of terminal pain, incurable illnesses, and so on. And in the cases of people suffering from depression or tragic grief, we should give them support and try to help them through the hard times until they can see a way to live again... Personally, I place value on quality of life, not mere life itself.

For now I prefer... to be.

emotional

I say they all fail and the God of Deism is proved...

BDS

Wyrdsmyth,

There IS a test to determine the existance of God and the truth of Christian theology, if you're so very interested. It's the one I suggested -- the "bare bodkin".

If you REALLY want to know whether God exists, that's the test to try.

But you DON'T really want to know. Instead, you want to devise tests that aren't tests at all -- they're mere sophomoric attempts to ridicule the faith of others without any understanding of it. Why would a Christian agree to a test that goes AGAINST Christian Dogma? That's why I quoted the two biblical passages. You can't expect a Christian to claim there IS a God, but I don't need to worry about "tempting Him", and I can "know His mind."

So the answer to your "Why not?" question is because the Bible forbids Christians form tempting or knowing.

Your error, Wyrdsmyth, is in thinking that IF there is a God, He will behave as YOU (mighty you) think He will. Why should He?

BDS, who is not a Christian, or even a theist, but is embarrassed by the illogical arguments of my fellow non-believers.

Wyrdsmyth

Wrong. Because that test would do nothing to add to human knowledge, at large. It would only add to my personal knowledge. I am talking about expanding upon the general pool of knowledge, not just my own personal experience. I am talking about claims and tests of those claims that can be explored and verified, regardless of who commits the tests or when. I'm always willing to take the theories of those like OJuice into account, when devising such tests. As I said, I thought his comments were valid, and he raised some alternate possible explanations.

The Bible is contradictory on this thing, is it not? After all, isn't this the test (as others have already pointed out in this thread) that Elijah levelled against the followers of Baal? Don't be too quick to assume my sole aim is ridicule, or that I'm ignorant of Christian theology. But anyway, this isn't just about the Christian god, but about all divine claims.

Again, I don't view my position as arrogant. What is so arrogant about wanting to find out whether and which gods exist? And, I am not saying that any gods are obligated to participate in such a test. It is up to them. But why wouldn't they want to display their existence, if indeed they want some sort of recognition, worship or communion with mortals?

Where's the logical error?

Wyrdsmyth

Yes, like OJuice, you have raised some valid objections. I don't suppose a single test can be applied to all religious claims.

That makes sense. I am also a Randi admirer.

Juxtapose this with the Biblical quotes given by BDS. So... the Bible says they can do miracles. Yet, they are invoked not to put God to the test. Well, which is it?

Wyrdsmyth

Why couldn't it have been? What if it was just founded naturally, with no supernatural intervention, but the people declared Athene (whom they believed in, but who wasn't really there) to be their civic patroness? I don't see how your argument works.

I agree that that is a problem for design arguments, in general.

It does? I just see the things being destroyed. I don't get the part where it looks like numerous gods are involved.

Good, then we have a common ground. I can't help but notice your choice of phrase: "constructed theology." Heh, heh...

My guess is that it resulted from a lot of illogical thinking: "I prayed to god X for help in the battle. I won the battle. Therefore X must be real." That sort of thing. And, as you note, "since I didn't do so well in battle under god Y that I used to pray to, god Y must not be real," isn't deductively valid either.

Yeah, I'm also saying how can we distinguish between prayer working and not working? If someone prays for something, and it happens or doesn't happen, they can rationalize it either way. So, how is praying any different from not praying, aside from how it makes the person praying feel inside? Does prayer have any statistically significant effect on the external world, or not? That is what I'm after.

BDS

Your logical error, wyrdsmyth, is to assume that your little experiment would prove anything. True: if the blind and the deaf were cured, we might hve some evidence. If they were not, however (as would undoubtedly be the case), you wouldn't have proved anything one way or the other. All you would have proved is that if there is a God, he isn't a performing pony that you can force to do tricks, at your whim.

So why bother?

Besides, you wouldn't believe the evidence if the blind and the deaf WERE cured. After all, there's plenty of evidence that blind and deaf people have been cured (read Mark 8:24) and you don't believe it. So your little homily about how you want to "add to human knowledge" doesn't ring true.

Wayne Delia

That's not a logical error. It could be a mistake, if it's not true, but it doesn't appear to be.

True: if the blind and the deaf were cured, we might hve some evidence.

Hardly conclusive evidence, though: blind and deaf people are occasionally cured without supernatural means. For example, I was strongly myopic and astigmatic up until two years ago, when I suddenly gained 20/15 eyesight with no astigmatism. It was the Lasik operation, not faith and prayers, that brought about that "miracle".

If they were not, however (as would undoubtedly be the case), you wouldn't have proved anything one way or the other.

It would have disproved certain claims made in the Bible, though, such as the abilities promised to Christians by Jesus in Mark 16:17-18 and Mark 11:22-24.

All you would have proved is that if there is a God, he isn't a performing pony that you can force to do tricks, at your whim.

Unless God (or Jesus, speaking on behalf of God) made those specific promises, as He did in the above two references.

So why bother?

To see if this proposed God, with certain claimed abilities, is true to His word. If He isn't, there is hardly any reason that the rest of His word should be taken seriously, especially the unfalsifiable and untestable parts.

Besides, you wouldn't believe the evidence if the blind and the deaf WERE cured.

Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for failing to produce the evidence.

After all, there's plenty of evidence that blind and deaf people have been cured (read Mark 8:24) and you don't believe it.

I've read Mark 8:23-25 and it is not "evidence" - it is merely a restatement of the claim. You really don't want to go down that path unless you are prepared to accept the claims in the Qu'ran as evidence of the validity of Islam.

So your little homily about how you want to "add to human knowledge" doesn't ring true.

That doesn't follow, but even if it did, it would only be a mistake, not a logical fallacy as you claimed.

WMD

Hawkingfan

In order for a cure to be miraculous it would *have* to break natural laws.
That is nothing but an unproved assertion. One that Occam's Razor dices away nicely. It would be unreasonable to believe a natural cure was the work of anything *super*natural. Also, the terms are mutually exclusive.
Very sneaky of you, but I don't think he was implying that "faith healing works...under naturalism".
No, I think this is what he meant by "statistically significant". If one person is cured of blindness, maybe you could say the above (but it would still be an assertion). But if a thousand people were healed all at once, I don't see how someone could argue that that would be the same result as if there were no gods behind it.
Yes, ad hoc was used even back then. How do you know the possibility is "real"? Likely as any other what? Assertion? Would Occam's Razor rate the natural explanation and this ad hoc explanation the same? Are you kidding?
I see ad hoc explanations are your specialty. The problem is that you don't know you're doing it. Or don't care.