Convince me that God exists

[Kulindahr]

Ok well I can't think of any situations where a religious person would be better equipped to make a decision because of the mere fact that he or she is religious.

I can, and it takes no effort at all.

I'll take an example from a recent news story: a person's significant other was killed. The person came to an opportunity, and had the means, and had the motive, to kill the perpetrator. Not getting punished for it was almost a certainty.

I would immediately trust a religious person to make a better decision in this case, because "Thou shalt not murder" is axiomatic. A non-religious person would have no reason to consider anything but personal consequences.


In the item I reference, the person did not kill, because of belief in God.



Now whether that -- the theory or the event -- should make any difference in whether one ought to believe in God is arguable. But it does contribute to a demonstration that belief in God is not unreasonable, since such a belief contributed to what we tend to think of as a reasonable decision.

 

[Kulindahr]

The argument from complexity is lacking, though certainly it can be inspiring. It's in some ways a "god of the gaps" approach, because it relies on what we think of a s complex. This instance relies on a comparison with computer power; in a generation people could well laugh at it because the computer power referenced has become so pitiful.

This is something shared with 'proofs' that depend on science in any way. I've known people for whom the Big Bang theory was proof of God's existence, because it suggested that something came from nothing, which is what the concept of a Creator -- the essential attribute of God, per the OP -- requires. Similarly, there used to be people who considered the existence of just one galaxy, or just one habitable planet, or similar things to be proof. They've been disappointed, and those who lean on the Big Bang may be as well. The best one ought to ever say is that this, if so, is certainly strikingly like what I/we might expect God would do.

Then if/when it turns out to be wrong, one can say, "I think I misunderstood God".

A great historical example of hitching one's faith in God to a certain scientific position is the whole Galileo story. The problem was not faith vs. reason, as is made out, because both sides had faith. The problem was that the Church had essentially hitched its theology to Ptolemaic and Aristotelian 'science'. Because of that, to have backed down would have unsettled their faith -- so they dug in and refused to budge. Their connection/addiction to a certain scientific model made them reactionary. The battle was thus faith too cowardly to consider that the science they liked might be wrong, and thus learn about God, against faith confident enough to ask how God really did things. In time, the second always wins, but the transition can be painful -- and bloody.

So consider Galileo a warning against hitching faith to any particular scientific position -- next week, it could come undone (I note in passing that while Rome has improved [belatedly], it continues to make the same mistake when it engages in such foolishness as endorsing evolution).

 

[WillMc88]

Again, there goes the court system.
Most of people's knowledge is based on testimony. Most of what you know about science is based on testimony, for that matter.
We believe what the casualty numbers in Afghanistan are because of testimony. We believe what the weather was on the other side of the country yesterday because of testimony.

You're really not getting what I'm saying it seems. *sigh* I realize what testimony is, and what it can be used for. Enough with 'there goes the court system' bull shit. You can not testify something into existence. Regardless of how many people attest to seeing it. The examples you mentioned are not in any way testimonies to the existence of anything supernatural or extraordinary in the slightest.

You completely disregarded when I said that a person's interpretation of what they see is not necessarily accurate, and in the case of ghosts and gods, it's simply gonna require more than he-said-she-said. Period.

If someone claims they saw something, I'm not denying that they may have seem something. It just may not be what they thought it was.

BTW, when you say "have not been demonstrated to exist", you're merely hiding your preconceptions in a serious-sounding phrase.

I am, indeed, preconceived to believe extraordinary things only when they have been demonstrated to be real. It seems that we differ on that.

Cute -- you made a claim, and now you want me to provide proof? The claim was that testimony is not evidence.

What claim did I make, hmm?

I explained that -- and you're just acting religious again. You're demanding that all of us accept the position you have taken, and you provide no reasons to do so.

What better way is there to assess reality than by evidence, observation and logical proofs? If you have one, then do share!

Your contention has been that non-religious minds by their very nature make better decisions. Your implication has been that this somehow militates against the possibility of the existence/reality of God. I took your own words and made the point that you're flat out wrong -- on the basis of your own statements.

Let me clarify then. I don't feel like digging through this discussion, but I said something like "A rational person is more likely to make better decisions than a superstitious person." People of any sort can be cruel, and that's not what I was referring to.

This in no way implies that a god can't exist because of that. I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way, but that's an entirely different conversation. It's also one that I have had with you and I remember very clearly how it turned out.

I really hate these lengthy debates. It turns into tit-for-tat, and the initial point is buried under pages of back-and-forth uselessness.

 

[WillMc88]

I can, and it takes no effort at all.

I'll take an example from a recent news story: a person's significant other was killed. The person came to an opportunity, and had the means, and had the motive, to kill the perpetrator. Not getting punished for it was almost a certainty.

I would immediately trust a religious person to make a better decision in this case, because "Thou shalt not murder" is axiomatic. A non-religious person would have no reason to consider anything but personal consequences.


In the item I reference, the person did not kill, because of belief in God.



Now whether that -- the theory or the event -- should make any difference in whether one ought to believe in God is arguable. But it does contribute to a demonstration that belief in God is not unreasonable, since such a belief contributed to what we tend to think of as a reasonable decision.

It's the 'big brother' effect, and understandably so.

Again, this isn't really what I meant. While I'm certainly not condoning murder, I was referring to a smarter or more effective decision, not moral decisions, which is a different topic for discussion.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're really not getting what I'm saying it seems. *sigh* I realize what testimony is, and what it can be used for. Enough with 'there goes the court system' bull shit. You can not testify something into existence. Regardless of how many people attest to seeing it. The examples you mentioned are not in any way testimonies to the existence of anything supernatural or extraordinary in the slightest.

You completely disregarded when I said that a person's interpretation of what they see is not necessarily accurate, and in the case of ghosts and gods, it's simply gonna require more than he-said-she-said. Period.

If someone claims they saw something, I'm not denying that they may have seem something. It just may not be what they thought it was.


I am, indeed, preconceived to believe extraordinary things only when they have been demonstrated to be real. It seems that we differ on that.


What claim did I make, hmm?



What better way is there to assess reality than by evidence, observation and logical proofs? If you have one, then do share!

Let me clarify then. I don't feel like digging through this discussion, but I said something like "A rational person is more likely to make better decisions than a superstitious person." People of any sort can be cruel, and that's not what I was referring to.

This in no way implies that a god can't exist because of that. I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way, but that's an entirely different conversation. It's also one that I have had with you and I remember very clearly how it turned out.

I really hate these lengthy debates. It turns into tit-for-tat, and the initial point is buried under pages of back-and-forth uselessness.

The point you're missing is that you're dissing any way of knowing things except the one you wish to adhere to. You dive in like it's the only one, but back off -- about as convincingly as a politician who claims "I didn't really vote for invading Iraq" -- when challenged, only to return to doing it again.

As to what point you made, since I stated it right there, I don't know what you're trying to demonstrate by asking what it was.

The way you stated things, you called religion a fantasy, and the claim was that almost always, a decision based on what is real will be better than a decision based on religion. That's not even a claim that can be answered, because the statement contains an assertion that has to be disputed, namely that religion is fantasy and whatever it has to say isn't real. Your assertion is really no different than the question if you've stopped beating your boyfriend: it contains an a priori assumption that makes the assertion self-destructing when you meet the real world.

When the question is whether someone should be convinced God could/might exist, to build into a statement the assumption that the idea of God is a fantasy to begin with is either dishonest or cheating, or evidence of unclear thinking.

That last is part of my point in asking first whether belief in God is unreasonable: if it requires unclear thinking to believe (or for that matter disbelieve), then it is not reasonable.

And by insisting on "there goes the court system", I'm pointing out that a huge amount of human knowledge is based on testimony -- indeed, as I noted, most people's scientific knowledge is based on testimony. It may not stack up to the standards of a different way of establishing truth, but to require it to do so is idiocy not a whole lot different than demanding that electrical components meet plumbing standards.

 

[WillMc88]

The point you're missing is that you're dissing any way of knowing things except the one you wish to adhere to. You dive in like it's the only one, but back off -- about as convincingly as a politician who claims "I didn't really vote for invading Iraq" -- when challenged, only to return to doing it again.

I'm giving you an opportunity to suggest any other method of ascertaining reality. If you really cannot give me one, then come back when you can. Otherwise, I rely on the method that has been tried and true. What about that do you not understand?

As to what point you made, since I stated it right there, I don't know what you're trying to demonstrate by asking what it was.

Sorry, I didn't make the claim you're talking about. Show me where I did. Your argument is boiling down to "yeah huh!"

The way you stated things, you called religion a fantasy, and the claim was that almost always, a decision based on what is real will be better than a decision based on religion. That's not even a claim that can be answered, because the statement contains an assertion that has to be disputed, namely that religion is fantasy and whatever it has to say isn't real. Your assertion is really no different than the question if you've stopped beating your boyfriend: it contains an a priori assumption that makes the assertion self-destructing when you meet the real world.

None of the supernatural claims made by religion have been demonstrated to have any bearing in reality, as far as I know, other than the impact of the belief itself on the believer. Why should I assume they are real, Kulindahr?

The thing is, we do have standards for determining what is real and what is not. There is no a priori assumption made here. Unless I simply assume everything ever posited that has no demonstrable, evidentiary support to be true, then I must be making an a priori assumption?

I've already explained why I said that I think in most situations, a decision based on reality will be better than a decision based on fantasy. I gave examples.

When the question is whether someone should be convinced God could/might exist, to build into a statement the assumption that the idea of God is a fantasy to begin with is either dishonest or cheating, or evidence of unclear thinking.

If you're saying that I did that, I don't remember it. So please quote me so I know what you're talking about.

And by insisting on "there goes the court system", I'm pointing out that a huge amount of human knowledge is based on testimony -- indeed, as I noted, most people's scientific knowledge is based on testimony. It may not stack up to the standards of a different way of establishing truth, but to require it to do so is idiocy not a whole lot different than demanding that electrical components meet plumbing standards.

You're expecting knowledge of the existence of a higher power to only be subject to the same standards as knowledge gained by testimony?

I already had a discussion about this in this thread. There are many things that I would accept at face value. If you told me your name was Bob, I would believe you. I know that people have names, and frankly, it doesn't matter to me that much what your name is. If you told me you were from Australia, I would probably believe that too. If you told me you spoke to god last night, that claim would require a different amount and type of evidence for me to believe it. Does that make sense to you?

 

[bankside]

A few points:
Speaking of political slipperiness, Kulindahr, it is impressive how quickly the fifth century can be alternately relevant or irrelevant when the question arises of judging the plausibility of divinity based on the historical behaviour of Christians. I would have thought the whole 2000 years would count.

And secondly, in that you've posed the question, am I to assume that with sufficient well-understood evidence and argument, you would concede the irrationality of belief in the divine, only that you have not yet heard such evidence or argument?

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm giving you an opportunity to suggest any other method of ascertaining reality. If you really cannot give me one, then come back when you can. Otherwise, I rely on the method that has been tried and true. What about that do you not understand?

You do the same thing over again. I get what you're saying; you don't get that you're shutting down the primary way humans know things.

Sorry, I didn't make the claim you're talking about. Show me where I did. Your argument is boiling down to "yeah huh!"

No, my argument is boiling down to "Pay attention to what you post", or "Read your own posts". Just by flicking back through the thread I can find two places where you made the assertion flat out, and three more where you imply it.

None of the supernatural claims made by religion have been demonstrated to have any bearing in reality, as far as I know, other than the impact of the belief itself on the believer. Why should I assume they are real, Kulindahr?

The thing is, we do have standards for determining what is real and what is not. There is no a priori assumption made here. Unless I simply assume everything ever posited that has no demonstrable, evidentiary support to be true, then I must be making an a priori assumption?

I've already explained why I said that I think in most situations, a decision based on reality will be better than a decision based on fantasy. I gave examples.

You gave examples predicated on your a priori position that religion is a fantasy. I gave examples that take no a priori position.

The first approach is not relevant to this thread, it's an attempt to derail it. The question is to convince someone that God could exist, and a mind closed to that possibility doesn't help with that. All you're doing is recasting your position that religion is fantasy in different clothes -- how does that address the thread's question?

You haven't even really addressed my question, with is whether belief in God is reasonable (or not not unreasonable). You claim that only one way can "determine what is real and what is not", but you ignore the fact that most human knowledge rests on other means that the scientific method. Beyond that, you're also ignoring that the scientific method makes no claim to be able to measure everything and decide on the existence of everything there might be.

If you're saying that I did that, I don't remember it. So please quote me so I know what you're talking about.

You said:

It's so damn better because there's not a shred of demonstrable evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. Belief in anything supernatural will affect how a person lives out his or her life and the person will inevitably make decisions based on these beliefs. In most all cases, it will be better to make a decision based on things that we can demonstrate are real as opposed to a decision based on fantasy.

There you've equated the supernatural with fantasy.

You're expecting knowledge of the existence of a higher power to only be subject to the same standards as knowledge gained by testimony?

I never said that; it's just the flip side of your position, which is not what I've said at all.

But when part of what has to be looked at is events acknowledged by their witnesses to be outside the normal, the methods employed have to be those of looking at history, not science; science is incapable of addressing the issue. If somehow one knew when a miracle was going to occur, it might be possible to get scientific methods in on the action, but not necessarily (depends on the variety of 'miracle', which don't all mean "something outside the usual way things happen").

I already had a discussion about this in this thread. There are many things that I would accept at face value. If you told me your name was Bob, I would believe you. I know that people have names, and frankly, it doesn't matter to me that much what your name is. If you told me you were from Australia, I would probably believe that too. If you told me you spoke to god last night, that claim would require a different amount and type of evidence for me to believe it. Does that make sense to you?

To a degree, yes. But what I think that you're not seeing is that encounters with God have never been things anyone would claim can be reproduced on command. I might be able to call a friend to appear so you can see he exists, but could a soldier on the ground in Iraq call Secretary Gates and have him appear to show some local that the American head of the Department of Defense really exists? Merely extrapolating from that will suggest that God isn't going to show up just to satisfy some local's curiosity. It follows that He isn't likely to perform on command, either.

So by the nature of things, scientific methods aren't reasonable for deciding if God is real, or even if believing He is is reasonable.

 

[bankside]

You do the same thing over again. I get what you're saying; you don't get that you're shutting down the primary way humans know things.

You are confusing the primary way people hear of propositions with the primary way people verify the integrity of those propositions.

So by the nature of things, scientific methods aren't reasonable for deciding if God is real, or even if believing He is is reasonable.

Neutrino detector.

Neutrinos don't appear on command either. Science is not so simplistic as to constrain itself only to the sorts of direct empirical evidence available to soldiers in Iraq.

Which brings me to the idea I recently mooted: that there is no divinity which is universally real for all places, times, conditions or people. If the only way to ascertain divine existence is through selective personal contact constrained in a way that it cannot be experienced, observed, or inferred indirectly at all except by the direct "experiencer," then god's existence would be kind of a schrodinger's cat duality: real for some and accurately dismissible as fantasy for others.

That is conceivable, but it brings a quick end to any claims made by religions of bearing any kind of universal message for humanity: if there were a god in such a universe/multiverse/cosmos, it would appear that he would be stuck delivering his own messages.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are confusing the primary way people hear of propositions with the primary way people verify the integrity of those propositions.

A guy on the street tells me there's been a huge earthquake in Mexico. That's testimony. I check the local news station, and find out the man's account matches -- but that's also testimony.

Testimony is the primary basis on which people not only hear information, but verify it. It's what we use in the CE & P forum -- just as an example.

Neutrino detector.

Neutrinos don't appear on command either. Science is not so simplistic as to constrain itself only to the sorts of direct empirical evidence available to soldiers in Iraq.

False comparison: neutrinos appear predictably, statistically. No one would build a neutrino detector unless they already had good, solid (and mathematical) reason to expect those particles wold appear on a regular basis.

Now if you could posit some sort of energy that might be given off (such as that hypothesized once to account for the image on the Shroud of Turin) when a miracle or vision took place, and propose some device that ought to detect that sort of energy, you might be onto something... except that there's no way to even begin to make a prediction as to where and when such things might happen (well, unless you believe the Roman Catholics about certain shrines and relics), so a worldwide network would be needed.

Which brings me to the idea I recently mooted: that there is no divinity which is universally real for all places, times, conditions or people. If the only way to ascertain divine existence is through selective personal contact constrained in a way that it cannot be experienced, observed, or inferred indirectly at all except by the direct "experiencer," then god's existence would be kind of a schrodinger's cat duality: real for some and accurately dismissible as fantasy for others.

That is conceivable, but it brings a quick end to any claims made by religions of bearing any kind of universal message for humanity: if there were a god in such a universe/multiverse/cosmos, it would appear that he would be stuck delivering his own messages.

Interesting. That ties directly into a theological question almost as old as Christianity, Cur alii, alii non? That applies not only to salvation, but to miracles: why do they appear/happen to some, but not to others?

But it doesn't affect claims to universal meaning, because it doesn't even begin to touch on whether one religion may be valid and another not.

A physicist would agree with you though; if it can't be measured, its value is zero is a refrain I got over and over in physics classes at OSU (the Oregon one, not one of the other three).

 

[bankside]

A guy on the street tells me there's been a huge earthquake in Mexico. That's testimony. I check the local news station, and find out the man's account matches -- but that's also testimony.

Testimony is the primary basis on which people not only hear information, but verify it. It's what we use in the CE & P forum -- just as an example.



False comparison: neutrinos appear predictably, statistically. No one would build a neutrino detector unless they already had good, solid (and mathematical) reason to expect those particles wold appear on a regular basis.

Now if you could posit some sort of energy that might be given off (such as that hypothesized once to account for the image on the Shroud of Turin) when a miracle or vision took place, and propose some device that ought to detect that sort of energy, you might be onto something... except that there's no way to even begin to make a prediction as to where and when such things might happen (well, unless you believe the Roman Catholics about certain shrines and relics), so a worldwide network would be needed.



Interesting. That ties directly into a theological question almost as old as Christianity, Cur alii, alii non? That applies not only to salvation, but to miracles: why do they appear/happen to some, but not to others?

But it doesn't affect claims to universal meaning, because it doesn't even begin to touch on whether one religion may be valid and another not.

A physicist would agree with you though; if it can't be measured, its value is zero is a refrain I got over and over in physics classes at OSU (the Oregon one, not one of the other three).

i suspect that question predates christianity in one form or another. after all, children spontaneously generate the expression "me toooooooooo," which is kind of the flip-side of that one.

By the way, you're forgetting the key part about testimony: people reason things out when they hear contradictory testimony.

here's an example. "in my direct personal experience, i have been privy to a transcendent journey through the nature and substance of all that is, and i have explored the void which might have contained divinity, but didn't, and on that journey i was also able to experience all of time, and outside of time, and that void was ever thus."

so there you go. by my testimony i refute not just any divine personage, but all those which have been postulated or claimed and all which might be postulated or claimed, for in all that is, was, or ever shall be, there was never room for god. i know it. i've seen it. taadaaa!

convinced?

well, would you be convinced if you heard this guy tell you there was an earthquake, and then you turned on the news station and they reported a calm and pleasant day in mexico? no. you'd have conflicting testimony, and you'd have to weigh the credibility of the testimony and act as arbiter as to its reasonableness. you'd be wise to collect more testimony, or even collect any possible evidence. ultimately though, you would be making a rational decision about the conflicting claims regarding the events in mexico, and you would be able to explain it to people who asked.

 

[WillMc88]

You do the same thing over again. I get what you're saying; you don't get that you're shutting down the primary way humans know things.

I can just as easily say that you're simply repeating yourself over and over. I'm completely aware that most of the information we get on a day to day basis is from other sources and not personal observation.

No, my argument is boiling down to "Pay attention to what you post", or "Read your own posts". Just by flicking back through the thread I can find two places where you made the assertion flat out, and three more where you imply it.

Is it really difficult to quote what you're referring to? Obviously you just read it, so clickity click and copy paste.

You gave examples predicated on your a priori position that religion is a fantasy. I gave examples that take no a priori position.

(...)

You said:

It's so damn better because there's not a shred of demonstrable evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. Belief in anything supernatural will affect how a person lives out his or her life and the person will inevitably make decisions based on these beliefs. In most all cases, it will be better to make a decision based on things that we can demonstrate are real as opposed to a decision based on fantasy.

There you've equated the supernatural with fantasy.

The only position I had for those examples was that the 'fantasies' I mentioned are being called 'fantasies' because "none of the supernatural claims made by religion have been demonstrated to have any bearing in reality, as far as I know, other than the impact of the belief itself on the believer." Stop calling it a priori because it's not something I've simply 'assumed' for no good reason. Until there is evidence of prayer working or diving healing, then why should I believe?

The first approach is not relevant to this thread, it's an attempt to derail it. The question is to convince someone that God could exist, and a mind closed to that possibility doesn't help with that. All you're doing is recasting your position that religion is fantasy in different clothes -- how does that address the thread's question?

If I had been addressing the OP, then sure. Re-read my initial posts and see that I was responding to something quite different. Could a god exist? Yes. Is it likely? I'm not convinced. Are you going to say that this means I've 'closed my mind?' Probably.

You haven't even really addressed my question, with is whether belief in God is reasonable (or not not unreasonable). You claim that only one way can "determine what is real and what is not", but you ignore the fact that most human knowledge rests on other means that the scientific method. Beyond that, you're also ignoring that the scientific method makes no claim to be able to measure everything and decide on the existence of everything there might be.

You keep lumping all sources of information outside of firsthand experience as 'testimony,' which is a gross oversimplification. The problem with this is that not all of these sources are equally reliable.

As I said before, most information people receive on a day-to-day basis is from outside sources (people, media, etc). How do we determine if the information we receive is true or even likely to be true, Kulindahr? I want you to answer that question.

I never said that; it's just the flip side of your position, which is not what I've said at all.

But when part of what has to be looked at is events acknowledged by their witnesses to be outside the normal, the methods employed have to be those of looking at history, not science; science is incapable of addressing the issue. If somehow one knew when a miracle was going to occur, it might be possible to get scientific methods in on the action, but not necessarily (depends on the variety of 'miracle', which don't all mean "something outside the usual way things happen").

What qualifies a thing as being 'outside the normal?' How do you define 'miracle?' How can we determine if a miracle really did take place?

To a degree, yes. But what I think that you're not seeing is that encounters with God have never been things anyone would claim can be reproduced on command. I might be able to call a friend to appear so you can see he exists, but could a soldier on the ground in Iraq call Secretary Gates and have him appear to show some local that the American head of the Department of Defense really exists? Merely extrapolating from that will suggest that God isn't going to show up just to satisfy some local's curiosity. It follows that He isn't likely to perform on command, either.

So by the nature of things, scientific methods aren't reasonable for deciding if God is real, or even if believing He is is reasonable.

Ok so God is undetectable by science. You can't see him, or measure him in any way. And he will not under any circumstances reveal himself on command. He is completely unfalsifiable. Just like the immaterial, invisible, Celestial Teapot that orbits the sun somewhere between Venus and Earth.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can just as easily say that you're simply repeating yourself over and over. I'm completely aware that most of the information we get on a day to day basis is from other sources and not personal observation.

But you say that's worthless information:

Testimony is not demonstrable evidence.

And every time you've discussed it before, you cast it as worthless.

Is it really difficult to quote what you're referring to? Obviously you just read it, so clickity click and copy paste.

I figured you ought to be aware of your own posts.

The only position I had for those examples was that the 'fantasies' I mentioned are being called 'fantasies' because "none of the supernatural claims made by religion have been demonstrated to have any bearing in reality, as far as I know, other than the impact of the belief itself on the believer." Stop calling it a priori because it's not something I've simply 'assumed' for no good reason. Until there is evidence of prayer working or diving healing, then why should I believe?

There's evidence, but you'll reject it because it relies on testimony.

If I had been addressing the OP, then sure. Re-read my initial posts and see that I was responding to something quite different. Could a god exist? Yes. Is it likely? I'm not convinced. Are you going to say that this means I've 'closed my mind?' Probably.

No, what shows that you've closed your mind is you won't accept anything as evidence which in actual practice you do accept as evidence.

You keep lumping all sources of information outside of firsthand experience as 'testimony,' which is a gross oversimplification. The problem with this is that not all of these sources are equally reliable.

As I said before, most information people receive on a day-to-day basis is from outside sources (people, media, etc). How do we determine if the information we receive is true or even likely to be true, Kulindahr? I want you to answer that question.

I've already answered it in part, and you dismissed it: convergence of independent testimony, and multiple testimony to the same thing. Those are two tools used in many non-mathematically-based disciplines. Contrary-to-expectation is another, as is less likely motivation.

What qualifies a thing as being 'outside the normal?' How do you define 'miracle?' How can we determine if a miracle really did take place?

Usually "outside the normal" means it violates the rules everyone knows the world works by. Things falling upward would be an obvious one, sick people suddenly getting completely well another.

I'd define a miracle an intervention in nature by an outside, higher power. It isn't a violation of the laws of nature, but a manipulation of them.

That leads to one of the ways to distinguish a miracle from a magical event: a miracle can generally be expected to either make use of or conform to natural laws, except in an accelerated or abrupt form. Thus turning water to wine counts as a miracle; water turns to wine all the time, using photosynthesis and fermentation. Another seems totally contrary; it can even be called the rule of contrariness, or backwardness: when an event runs not merely contrary to what is expected, but does so in a way that points to things being run backward almost as in a film, e.g. the Resurrection, which essentially is death running backwards.

But how would a scientist determine if something is a miracle? By being there and happening to have the opportunity to observe. Yet even though scientists have done so, since they haven't been fortunate enough to have any recording equipment of any sort, their testimony is dismissed.

Ok so God is undetectable by science. You can't see him, or measure him in any way. And he will not under any circumstances reveal himself on command. He is completely unfalsifiable. Just like the immaterial, invisible, Celestial Teapot that orbits the sun somewhere between Venus and Earth.

If He'd reveal Himself on command, He'd hardly qualify as God. But He isn't "unfalsifiable"; many will tell you that He has indeed unfalsified Himself -- but you reject testimony.

The problem with your nifty comparison at the end is that the testimony of millions, even hundreds of millions, is that God is real; the notion of that teapot is known to be an invention conceived purely for the purpose of mockery.


On topic, you're basically asserting that no claims to the reality of God can be accepted, because they don't measure up to your terms. But your terms apply only to a single area of knowledge. Thus they are insufficient to address the question.

 

[bankside]

The teapot is not conceived remotely for the purpose of mockery. It is conceived to illustrate the dilemma of the non-believer who is not privy to a divine revelation.

Why should anyone in that position accept such a rather remarkable claim based on someone's testimony when there is patently contradictory testimony forthcoming from other people of equal character and temperament?

Your whole argument as to the validity of testimony seems to be perched on the tenuous assumption that the testimony will always point unambiguously in one direction. That simply isn't so. And when the testimony conflicts, one either has to resolve the discrepancies using reason, or one can just obfuscate and invent apologies and exceptions and "other ways of knowing" and selectively and conveniently collate the "testimony," purge it of all contradictions (Stalin was good at that, even in photography) and paper the world with all sorts of folderol to avoid making that determination based on reason.

This isn't like an earthquake, where the testimony is consistent between news reporters, survivors, geophysicists, school children, the physical evidence in the form of rubble and collapsed structures, and even the "testimony" of the behaviour of dogs cats and birds.

 

[WillMc88]

But you say that's worthless information:

Bull shit. Quote me or get out. I'm really getting tired of you misrepresenting what I've said.

And every time you've discussed it before, you cast it as worthless.

Bull shit again. You're on a roll.

I figured you ought to be aware of your own posts.

Since you can't cite your source, we're done discussing this until you do.

There's evidence, but you'll reject it because it relies on testimony.

That isn't demonstrable evidence. I've already explained this but you either (a) failed to grasp it or (b) deliberately ignore what I'm saying.

No, what shows that you've closed your mind is you won't accept anything as evidence which in actual practice you do accept as evidence.

That makes no sense.

I've already answered it in part, and you dismissed it: convergence of independent testimony, and multiple testimony to the same thing. Those are two tools used in many non-mathematically-based disciplines. Contrary-to-expectation is another, as is less likely motivation.

bankside has some very good points about this, so I'll let him handle it. And apparently my standards of evidence are simply higher than yours, Kulindahr.

Usually "outside the normal" means it violates the rules everyone knows the world works by. Things falling upward would be an obvious one, sick people suddenly getting completely well another.

Well falling upward would be a good example. Has that ever been documented as happening? And sick people do 'suddenly' get well naturally.

I'd define a miracle an intervention in nature by an outside, higher power. It isn't a violation of the laws of nature, but a manipulation of them.

So in order to define a miracle, you have to presuppose a 'higher power.' For someone so ready to push the a priori button at anything and everything, this should be raising a red flag somewhere.

That leads to one of the ways to distinguish a miracle from a magical event: a miracle can generally be expected to either make use of or conform to natural laws, except in an accelerated or abrupt form. Thus turning water to wine counts as a miracle; water turns to wine all the time, using photosynthesis and fermentation. Another seems totally contrary; it can even be called the rule of contrariness, or backwardness: when an event runs not merely contrary to what is expected, but does so in a way that points to things being run backward almost as in a film, e.g. the Resurrection, which essentially is death running backwards.

I'm guessing you mean turning water into wine abruptly would be a miracle?

But how would a scientist determine if something is a miracle? By being there and happening to have the opportunity to observe. Yet even though scientists have done so, since they haven't been fortunate enough to have any recording equipment of any sort, their testimony is dismissed.

I never said anything about a scientist.

If He'd reveal Himself on command, He'd hardly qualify as God. But He isn't "unfalsifiable"; many will tell you that He has indeed unfalsified Himself -- but you reject testimony.

I don't reject testimony. I explained this already and I'm not explaining it again. For someone who taught reading comprehension you certainly are lacking in it.

The problem with your nifty comparison at the end is that the testimony of millions, even hundreds of millions, is that God is real; the notion of that teapot is known to be an invention conceived purely for the purpose of mockery.

You continue to miss the point, without fail, Kulindahr.

On topic, you're basically asserting that no claims to the reality of God can be accepted, because they don't measure up to your terms. But your terms apply only to a single area of knowledge. Thus they are insufficient to address the question.

Like I said, keep believing everything you hear, you King of Strawmen you.

 

[conrad]

Each time I see that this thread continues I think of another thing I learned early in life.
The greatest early prophet was Moses and he was impressed that the God who addressed him simply announced: "I am!" I am happy to say that the church denomination I associate with is today declaring that "God is still speaking" But, alas, "This is a wicked and perverse generation which seeketh after a sign but no sign shall be given them but the sign of Jonah." The explanation is that "Having ears to hear they hear not and having eyes to see they see not."

Yes, God by God's self-definition defies proving by human means. My mother and grandmother reminded me when it thundered that God was speaking. And, when I asked what God was saying in the thunder I was reminded that that was why I had to remain alert.

AND, THINK OF IT, THEY WERE CORRECT: No one presumes to prove the existence of any god worthy of the name . That would border on blasphemy.

No, friends, I do not pretend I could prove the existence of God to anyone. I can only testify as to what I see of God in the record of the past and the events of the present. Those who "trusted in God" have left us with a worthy heritage. Blind unbelief is as dangerous in my mind as blind faith. I try to steer clear of both.

No, my friend, I doubt that I could convince you that God exists. But, I would be delighted to share with you what I have come to believe. You are still the decider.

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

Each time I see that this thread continues I think of another thing I learned early in life.
The greatest early prophet was Moses and he was impressed that the God who addressed him simply announced: "I am!" I am happy to say that the church denomination I associate with is today declaring that "God is still speaking" But, alas, "This is a wicked and perverse generation which seeketh after a sign but no sign shall be given them but the sign of Jonah." The explanation is that "Having ears to hear they hear not and having eyes to see they see not."

Yes, God by God's self-definition defies proving by human means. My mother and grandmother reminded me when it thundered that God was speaking. And, when I asked what God was saying in the thunder I was reminded that that was why I had to remain alert.

AND, THINK OF IT, THEY WERE CORRECT: No one presumes to prove the existence of any god worthy of the name . That would border on blasphemy.

No, friends, I do not pretend I could prove the existence of God to anyone. I can only testify as to what I see of God in the record of the past and the events of the present. Those who "trusted in God" have left us with a worthy heritage. Blind unbelief is as dangerous in my mind as blind faith. I try to steer clear of both.

No, my friend, I doubt that I could convince you that God exists. But, I would be delighted to share with you what I have come to believe. You are still the decider.

Lol, that is some big ass font. I feel what you're saying.

 

[Jacquemar]

Yes, God by God's self-definition defies proving by human means. My mother and grandmother reminded me when it thundered that God was speaking. And, when I asked what God was saying in the thunder I was reminded that that was why I had to remain alert.

AND, THINK OF IT, THEY WERE CORRECT: No one presumes to prove the existence of any god worthy of the name . That would border on blasphemy.

Are there any other natural and explainable phenomena that you would like to attribute to your god? Wasn't Zeus the god who spoke in thunder and lightening?

 

[Kulindahr]

My mother and grandmother reminded me when it thundered that God was speaking. And, when I asked what God was saying in the thunder I was reminded that that was why I had to remain alert.

AND, THINK OF IT, THEY WERE CORRECT: No one presumes to prove the existence of any god worthy of the name . That would border on blasphemy.

There's a small problem here: God is no more present in the lightning and thunder than he is in a single drop of rain or, for that matter, the smell in my armpits, or the empty shell of a clam dropped by a campfire.

I don't see why attempting to prove the reality of God should seem blasphemous. Futile, perhaps,

Are there any other natural and explainable phenomena that you would like to attribute to your god? Wasn't Zeus the god who spoke in thunder and lightening?

I attribute all phenomena to the Creator, beginning with the phenomenon of phenomena.

 

[FirmaFan]

Wasn't it the God of Abraham, who spoke to Moses in thunder and lightening on Mt. Sinai shrouded in a cloud, after the crossing of the Red Sea? Wasn't it the God of Abraham who told Moses to strike Rock with his staff, and water flowed, and still flows to this day?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtI-lSvS028[/ame]