State Farm Syndrome Derail:Miracles.

[Bisto]

What the philosopher is saying is that since we humans have a long history of attributing events we do not understand to divine causation, and yet time after time in history, those attributions to divine causation have proven false and a natural cause has been discovered, instead of jumping to the assumption that rare, unusual health recoveries (medical cures) are acts of divine causation, we should withhold judgment until better evidence comes along, which prior probability indicates, will most likely point to a natural, not divine, cause for these events.

But therein lies a confidence, a hope, that Science will indeed cast light upon all things currently unexplained in the "material" world, both past, present and future. You are free to put your faith in Science though, certain of things hoped for, convicted of what you don't yet see, as based on what you already saw. But do know that is more a choice than anything.

In regard to Hume, this philosopher in another section of his website, states that he believes that Hume erred in stating that miracles are impossible. Miracles are not impossible, just very improbable. The evidence for a natural-law-defying miracle is so much weaker than the evidence for the inviolability of the natural law it supposedly violates. I believe that Christians, such as Nick, try to get around this fact by presupposing the existence of a miracle-producing god. But this is begging the question. You first must prove the reality of miracles before you can prove the existence of a miracle producing God. You can't use unproven miracles to prove the existence of a miracle-producing god. And just because there is evidence for a Creator God or gods, is not necessarily evidence that that God or gods interferes with the established laws of nature to perform miracles.

If Sparko is right, and I think he is, that modern miracles cannot be proven using the standards of science and medicine, what are Christians left with? They are left arguing for the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

It is true that eyewitness testimony has been the bedrock of the western criminal justice system for centuries. But should a system which has been proven by modern DNA studies to be so unreliable be used to establish our view of reality itself?? I would say, and I would bet the overwhelming majority of scientists would say---absolutely not.

Unreliable with regards to identification of suspects from a different race, IIRC. Does that really warrant that we dismiss eyewitness testimony for everything else too?

[Bisto]

That would be pretty convincing evidence.

He was talking about Jesus.

[Gary]

Read my last paragraph I spelled it out. And Gary you may not think so now but you will have a problem with it if you don't repent before it is to late.

Ok. Here is your last paragraph:

"I pray that Gary repents before it is too late for if he doesn't he will get exactly what he wants eternity without God and that my friends is something I do not wish on anyone including Gary."

So if do I want an eternity without your god, why should I worry about it being "too late"? Too late for what? I don't like your god or believe in him. I think he is cruel, self-absorbed, vindictive, and sadistic. I will be very happy without him...unless he is going to inflict some form of punishment upon me for rejecting him. Are you suggesting that he is going to inflict an eternal punishment upon me?

[Gary]

He was talking about Jesus.

No. He wasn't. I wasn't there to verify that Jesus was dead and then alive again, so this hypothetical scenario cannot be about Jesus.

If I had been at Jesus' crucifixion and had been able to examine his body after it had been taken off the cross, I would have checked for a pulse, a corneal reflex, and any signs of respiration. Then when he started appearing to people three days later, I would again want to examine his body, in particular his wounds, just as Thomas allegedly did. If after examining the "risen Jesus'" body, I believed it to be the same body I had examined at the foot of the cross, I would be a believer.

But every other skeptic is most likely going to demand the same opportunity to examine the evidence. So my eyewitness experience would be enough for me, but probably not enough to convince others.

Therefore, it seems only fair that Jesus appear to each and every person on earth to prove his Resurrection. If the disciples and Paul only believed after seeing the resurrected dead body, why should I and other skeptics be held to a higher standard? In my opinion, the statement, "Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe" is pure spin. I don't think Jesus ever said this.

[Gary]

But therein lies a confidence, a hope, that Science will indeed cast light upon all things currently unexplained in the "material" world, both past, present and future. You are free to put your faith in Science though, certain of things hoped for, convicted of what you don't yet see, as based on what you already saw. But do know that is more a choice than anything.



Unreliable with regards to identification of suspects from a different race, IIRC. Does that really warrant that we dismiss eyewitness testimony for everything else too?

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable not only in regards to identifying persons of another race. I suggest you research this issue.

Check out this excerpt. In shows how human memory is not like playing back a video recorder:

Reconstructing Memories

The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.

Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-eyes-have-it/

[RumTumTugger]

Ok. Here is your last paragraph:

"I pray that Gary repents before it is too late for if he doesn't he will get exactly what he wants eternity without God and that my friends is something I do not wish on anyone including Gary."

So if do I want an eternity without your god, why should I worry about it being "too late"? Too late for what? I don't like your god or believe in him. I think he is cruel, self-absorbed, vindictive, and sadistic.

But that is not the TRUE God Gary the one you don't like is the one you made up. God is a God of Justice as well as a God of loving Mercy he cannot in his justice allow sin to come in his presence. But In his GRACE has found a way to balance his Loving mercy with His Justice. but he won't force it on you if you don't want it.

I will be very happy without him...unless he is going to inflict some form of punishment upon me for rejecting him.

No you will not Gary. The only punishment is the one you will have chosen an eternity without the TRUE GOD not the god you made up in your mind.

Are you suggesting that he is going to inflict an eternal punishment upon me?

No I'm saying that what you think you want is the most terrible thing that can happen to someone an eternity without God and because unless you repent that is the eternity you have chosen. the only punishment is the one you inflict on yourself by choosing to walk in darkness but their is still time God's Loving Graceful Gift is waiting for you to take you only have to drop your arrogance and realize you do not know the TRUTH about God.

You see Gary God is not or only a Just God(the one you think of as cruel because he cannot stand Sin,) or only a loving merciful God(that you were probably taught when you thought you were a christian) he is both, and in his grace has found a way to balance his Justice and loving Mercy and it is offered to All but not all will take it. Don't be the later be the former. Don't continue to find excuses not to accept what he has given come to the light stop walking in Darkness before it is to late because when you do find yourself in front of him after you die because if you don't accept his Gift and repent he will say in sorrow let Thy Will be done since you refused to do his Will.

[Gary]

It is what you think you want now because you won't admit that God is Holy just and merciful. But when it happens you will truly know what hell is and it won't be a bed of roses for you.

So what will happen to me in Hell?

[RumTumTugger]

So what will happen to me in Hell?

Re read the post you are responding to. in it's entirety the post for your answer, The Truth about God and what can save you from that fate. I didn tthink i'd posted yet but must have and was editing my post for a more thorough answer. to your previous post.

here's the link

[Gary]

But that is not the TRUE God Gary the one you don't like is the one you made up. God is a God of Justice as well as a God of loving Mercy he cannot in his justice allow sin to come in his presence. But In his GRACE has found a way to balance his Loving mercy with His Justice. but he won't force it on you if you don't want it.


No you will not Gary. The only punishment is the one you will have chosen an eternity without the TRUE GOD not the god you made up in your mind.



No I'm saying that what you think you want is the most terrible thing that can happen to someone an eternity without God and because unless you repent that is the eternity you have chosen. the only punishment is the one you inflict on yourself by choosing to walk in darkness but their is still time God's Loving Graceful Gift is waiting for you to take you only have to drop your arrogance and realize you do not know the TRUTH about God.

You see Gary God is not or only a Just God(the one you think of as cruel because he cannot stand Sin,) or only a loving merciful God(that you were probably taught when you thought you were a christian) he is both, and in his grace has found a way to balance his Justice and loving Mercy and it is offered to All but not all will take it. Don't be the later be the former. Don't continue to find excuses not to accept what he has given come to the light stop walking in Darkness before it is to late because when you do find yourself in front of him after you die because if you don't accept his Gift and repent he will say in sorrow let Thy Will be done since you refused to do his Will.

But you are assuming I will be sorry for rejecting Yahweh-Jesus Christ. How do you know that?

And what goes on in Hell? Is it a wonderful place with a lot of light, trees, and grass where I can spend eternity having fun or is it a place of darkness and imposed sadness, or even, pain and suffering?

Please describe Hell.

[Sparko]

That would be pretty convincing evidence.

and suppose you and a few friends wrote it down. how convincing should it be for some else who didn't know the person?

[Gary]

and suppose you and a few friends wrote it down. how convincing should it be for some else who didn't know the person?

Well, that would depend on a couple of things:

1. How credible do other people believe that I and my friends are?
2. Is there any evidence that we have colluded our testimony or reviewed each other's testimony prior to giving our own?
3. How far outside the norm is our claim? If we are claiming to have met a Russian spy, they might believe us. If we claim to have been abducted by Martians and taken to Mars for three days and nights, they probably will not, no matter how sterling our reputations.

[Sparko]

No. He wasn't. I wasn't there to verify that Jesus was dead and then alive again, so this hypothetical scenario cannot be about Jesus.

If I had been at Jesus' crucifixion and had been able to examine his body after it had been taken off the cross, I would have checked for a pulse, a corneal reflex, and any signs of respiration. Then when he started appearing to people three days later, I would again want to examine his body, in particular his wounds, just as Thomas allegedly did. If after examining the "risen Jesus'" body, I believed it to be the same body I had examined at the foot of the cross, I would be a believer.

But every other skeptic is most likely going to demand the same opportunity to examine the evidence. So my eyewitness experience would be enough for me, but probably not enough to convince others.

Therefore, it seems only fair that Jesus appear to each and every person on earth to prove his Resurrection. If the disciples and Paul only believed after seeing the resurrected dead body, why should I and other skeptics be held to a higher standard? In my opinion, the statement, "Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe" is pure spin. I don't think Jesus ever said this.

so assuming that it did happen. how would someone who was not there be convinced? and if you say there isnt any way then again you have shown me that you would never accept any test for miracles unless you yourself was there. so stop trying to pretend you are open minded and willing to even consider a way to prove miracles.

[Sparko]

Well, that would depend on a couple of things:

1. How credible do other people believe that I and my friends are?
2. Is there any evidence that we have colluded our testimony or reviewed each other's testimony prior to giving our own?
3. How far outside the norm is our claim? If we are claiming to have met a Russian spy, they might believe us. If we claim to have been abducted by Martians and taken to Mars for three days and nights, they probably will not, no matter how sterling our reputations.

claiming someone came back from the dead would be pretty outside the norm, gary.

[Gary]

claiming someone came back from the dead would be pretty outside the norm, gary.

That is why very few people are going to believe me and my friends' story. In order for most people to believe a very extra-ordinary claim, such as someone coming back from the dead, they will demand very extra-ordinary evidence. Even the sworn word of four blokes with sterling reputations for honesty and integrity isn't going to cut it for most people.

Imagine this situation, Sparko: Four of your closest friends whom you believe are absolutely trustworthy, honest, level-headed, not prone to exaggeration, not gullible, and very intelligent and educated inform you that last night they were all abducted by aliens and flown on a Martian spaceship to Mars where they were mind-probed for three hours.

Would you believe this story to be true based solely on the word of your friends?

Most people would not. Most people would assume that even the most unlikely natural explanation is the cause before believing that their friends really took a quick trip to the planet Mars last night, such as that NASA abducted them and put them in a space simulator.

See what I mean?

For most people, eyewitness testimony is only good for ordinary events. When it comes to very extra-ordinary events, eyewitness testimony is just not enough.

[Sparko]

That is why very few people are going to believe my and my friends story. In order for most people to believe a very extra-ordinary claim they demand extra-ordinary evidence. The word of four blokes isn't going to cut it for most people.

so in the case of jesus, it would be even harder to convince other people who were actually there at the time right? people didnt believe people came back to life back then. they would have demanded to be shown this miracle man and if they wouldnt have seen they would not have believed. especially the people who knew tis guy. so unless it really happened they would not have convinced anyone and the christian religion would never have even begun. yet right from the resurrection the church grew by thousands at a time despite it being denounced by the jews and outlawed by the romans. something convinced these people, even those who doubted jesus when he was alive. without it being true there would not be a worldwide christian religion today.

so although you dont think the story of the resurrection is credible, I do because the christian church would never have happened unless the resurrection did.