Can We Today Believe In Miracles?

[Sheepdog]

Science is based on induction and probable truths. It is self correcting when new evidence falsifies or further clarifies previously held beliefs that were wrong.

Sorry if this is news to you.

oh no it's not news to me at all. unfortunately, science presupposes that the world we perceive through the 5 senses actually corresponds to some sort of real world. that is where Kant came to bite Hume in the butt. (not literally, of course)

[LGM]

oh no it's not news to me at all. unfortunately, science presupposes that the world we perceive through the 5 senses actually corresponds to some sort of real world.

Why is that "unfortunate"?

What is it that you think you are perceiving with your senses?

Perhaps your a solipsist?

Perhaps the rest of us are just part of your dream? or Kant's dream, or god's dream?

Perhaps we are caught in the matrix?

Perhaps you really think you are a sheep dog?

Perhaps you should not have done so much LSD back in the seventies?

[Arterial Spray]

oh no it's not news to me at all. unfortunately, science presupposes that the world we perceive through the 5 senses actually corresponds to some sort of real world. that is where Kant came to bite Hume in the butt. (not literally, of course)

Interesting. Unless I am mistaken, you recieved all of your knowledge about both Hume and Kant via your 5 senses, so since you appear to think that they existed and that one 'bit' the other your comment presupposes the same thing that science does. Moreover your act of responding to LGM was grounded in the same presupposition -- that your senses have reliably reported that there is an LGM out there to respond to.

[Sheepdog]

Why is that "unfortunate"?

What is it that you think you are perceiving with your senses?

Perhaps your a solipsist?

Perhaps the rest of us are just part of your dream? or Kant's dream, or god's dream?

Perhaps we are caught in the matrix?

Perhaps you really think you are a sheep dog?

Perhaps you should not have done so much LSD back in the seventies?

if you are riding on the coattails of Hume, this is your problem. since i don't, it isn't mine.

[Sheepdog]

Interesting. Unless I am mistaken, you recieved all of your knowledge about both Hume and Kant via your 5 senses, so since you appear to think that they existed and that one 'bit' the other your comment presupposes the same thing that science does. Moreover your act of responding to LGM was grounded in the same presupposition -- that your senses have reliably reported that there is an LGM out there to respond to.

indeed. that is because i reject Humean and Kantian thought (currently, at least. my epistemology is a work in progress.)

[LGM]

currently, at least. my epistemology is a work in progress.

Let us "know" when you figure it out...

In the meantime, please continue to think like a Sheep dog...

[Arterial Spray]

Let us "know" when you figure it out...

In the meantime, please continue to think like a Sheep dog...

Hmmm. I have to say that my own epistemology is a 'work in progress' (though I like to think it is well along in development), so if you are laughing at Sheepdog for this then you probably ought to laugh at me too, in all fairness...

That said, I do think it is odd that Sheepdog criticizes (or appears to criticize) science for making the same presuppositions that he does.

[JonAdams]

Johnny,

I have a feeling we could be talking round and round in circles for a long time if we carry on as we are. So, if you don't mind I will attempt to sumarise our positions:

Me: I believe there are certain things that are impossible and that if those things were to happen the only explanation is a miracle. I am speaking from a worldview where God is active within the world.

You: You believe there are cetain things that are improbable but since they have happened they must be possible (just very unlikely). You appear to be opperating from a worldview of extreme skepticism concerning whether or not God is active within the world (assuming you even believe he exists at all).
Those this seem like a fair summary?

I am doing this not as a way of avoiding your questions but because I want to be clear about where I stand on the issue. Even if I could answer your questions to your satisfaction (which I doubt) it wouldn't convince you because we have a critical difference in the way we view the world. You will always assume that since a thing has happened it must have been possible (if very unlikely) whilst I will be more willing to allow it to be a miracle (I would like to point out that I do tend to be skeptical of miracle accounts. But when someone I know and trust not to lie to me tells me one I will believe them - I have no reason to assume they are lying). By the way, the example you gave of a mouse lifting a battleship is possible, all the particles in the ship could suddenly all move up and then down giving the appearance of the mouse lifting it (quantum physics would say this is possible just very very very unlikely), on the other hand you could easily write it off as an illusion (I believe David Blaine - I think it was him - once "raised" the statue of liberty, so such tricks are possible).

Jonathan.

[Mark Little]

Wow talk about gullibility. Let me ask you this Mark. Where did I say I
believed this is a miracle? You really haven't figured out my point have you.
You just keep proving my point again and again. It was never about proving
this video was real or couldn't you figure that out. It was an example on
the skeptics and you proved my point.

Ok, let's see what you said

Here is an example:
http://birdsongatmidnight.com/sunvideo.html

Do you believe this video clip is of a miracle? Probably not. This shows that
even if God does miracles the skeptic may still deny it.

So, salvationfound, tell me exactly what you are saying.

You asked if I believed if this was a miracle and deduced that I probably wouldn't.

The next statment "This shows that even if God does miracles, the skeptic may still deny it." The sentence only makes sense if you believed it to be a miracle and it was self-denial on the part of skeptics to doubt it. It is clearly not a statement one would say if you believed the "miracle" was a fake and that it was reasonable to doubt.

The other alternative that I can see is that you did not believe it was a miracle and you were being dishonest in using it to support your proposition that a skeptic (me, in the case) would not believe in a miracle by God.

Which was it? Did you believe it was a real miracle and are now trying to wiggle out of your claim that the woeful video showed that God did miracles that a skeptic would not believe, or were you deliberately deceitful in using an example you didn't believe was true in the first place?

If the latter, shame on you.

[salvationfound]

Did you believe it was a real miracle and are now trying to wiggle out of your claim that the woeful video showed that God did miracles that a skeptic would not believe, or were you deliberately deceitful in using an example you didn't believe was true in the first place?

If the latter, shame on you.

Ok shame on me. The whole point was to see how a skeptic would respond
to something like a video. And I don't agree that it only made sense that I
wrote it the way I did if I believed it. I admit I should have made my phrasing
clearer. I was basing my point on the ECREE principle. Skeptics often bring
up how Mormonism is better attested than Christianity so why don't Christians
bring that up. Since skeptics aren't mormons it shows that even better
attested evidence won't necessarily convince them of a miracle anyway. It
makes me question the whole reasoning behind ECREE. What exactly is this
extraordinary evidence? A video? So I showed a video of a supposed
miracle. This whole thing was to go against the ECREE principle more than
anything.

But you are right I probably should have explained my reasons better rather
than simply try and trap an atheist. You made a good point. Now the story
of an Ethiopean girl is what I consider to be a real miracle of God by its
parallel to the Elijah story.

[Mark Little]

Ok shame on me. The whole point was to see how a skeptic would respond
to something like a video.

Which was to look at it and then attempt to determine what was going on.

And I don't agree that it only made sense that I
wrote it the way I did if I believed it. I admit I should have made my phrasing
clearer. I was basing my point on the ECREE principle.

In that case, I think you have supported the view that simply accepting such things on face value without applying the ECREE principle leads to silliness like that site.

Skeptics often bring
up how Mormonism is better attested than Christianity so why don't Christians
bring that up. Since skeptics aren't mormons it shows that even better
attested evidence won't necessarily convince them of a miracle anyway.

I don't know anything about this, as I don't think they're claims are anymore believeable. Any comment about who would think that and why would be baseless speculation on my part.

It
makes me question the whole reasoning behind ECREE. What exactly is this
extraordinary evidence? A video? So I showed a video of a supposed
miracle. This whole thing was to go against the ECREE principle more than
anything.

I don't see your reasoning here as it supports the ECREE principle perfectly.

A claim of a miracle is made, but the evidence only shows an ordinary photographic effect. Does this warrant classification as a miracle? Of course not, it is a common effect that can be caused either by a camera malfunction or by deception. It naturally enough fails the ECREE principle.

A man comes into your office, drenching wet. He says "It was raining outside, and I got wet." Most people would accept this on face value as it is a natural and relatively common experience. It does not require extraordinary proof to be believed.

A man comes your office, drenching wet. He says "I was standing outside and God teleported me to a waterfall where I got wet. I was then transported back here." This is an extraordinary claim. Do you accept it as readily as you do the first instance? If the answer is "No, I need more than just his word", then you have applied the ECREE principle.

However, since you reject the ECREE principle, how do you deal with this claim? Do you always accept it on face value?

[FirstSunday33ad]

The odds that you even understand evolutionary biology, or have ever cracked a biology text since the 9th grade, are about a zillion to one.

The odds of you amusing me continue to be 100 percent.

Thanks for being such a rock I can depend on.

Ah Lakie, ever the dependent one.

Your "reply" = Fallacy of The Appeal to Ridicule.

The odds of you ever posting anything that is even remotely an actual response to an actual point - 1 to 10 to the power of a billion. So I guess that there is even the slightest of hopes even for one as hopeless as you.

LGM - the resident village idiot...oh, sorry, I mean "skeptic".

[salvationfound]

Any comment about who would think that and why would be baseless speculation on my part.

I got it from Till's debate with Horner:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ill/till3.html

He does not believe that the Book of Mormon is, in any sense, inspired of God. He rejects it. But we have firsthand testimony from the three witnesses. And if you'll get a copy of the Book of Mormon, and open it, and look at that page, you'll see that underneath it is the testimony of the eight witnesses who swear that they didn't see the angel bring the plates down but they handled them with their hands.

I don't know anything about this, as I don't think they're claims are anymore believeable.

Yeah I really don't understand why Till brought it up I just don't think it
proves his case since it shows even firsthand testimony wouldn't convince
him of a miracle.

don't see your reasoning here as it supports the ECREE principle perfectly.

A claim of a miracle is made, but the evidence only shows an ordinary photographic effect. Does this warrant classification as a miracle? Of course not, it is a common effect that can be caused either by a camera malfunction or by deception. It naturally enough fails the ECREE principle.

Its not whether this exact miracle follows ECREE principle. It is causing the
question of what would constitute extraordinary evidence. I say if a person
wants to use the ECREE principle they have to explain what would constitute
extraordinary evidence.

A man comes your office, drenching wet. He says "I was standing outside and God teleported me to a waterfall where I got wet. I was then transported back here." This is an extraordinary claim. Do you accept it as readily as you do the first instance? If the answer is "No, I need more than just his word", then you have applied the ECREE principle.

However, since you reject the ECREE principle, how do you deal with this claim? Do you always accept it on face value?

I have my own criteria on miracle claims which I mention on this thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...5&page=4&pp=16

but to shorten it my main question for any miracle claim is what difference
does it make? Why should I care? The resurrection is used to both prove
Jesus was God and what will happen to me in the future one day.

This wet guy's miracle claim shows me nothing except to tell me that God has
a weird waterfall sense of humor. What difference does his miracle claim
make for my own life? It is an incomplete miracle.

[LGM]

Ah Lakie, ever the dependent one.

Your "reply" = Fallacy of The Appeal to Ridicule.

Your orignal post = Fallacy of Pure Stupidity

I'm sorry FirstNitwit...did you think your "quoted odds" comment, that it was incredibly unlikely that "evolution has occurred", deserved some kind of serious response?

The next time you quote statistics with regards to the likelihood "evolution" has occurred...please "show your work". (feel free to simply admit that as with most of what you post, you simply insert hand into rectum and yank out your post)

You've already demonstrated you can't intelligently discuss communism or Christianity, the two subjects that are your personal hobbies, why would ANYONE take anything you have to say about evolutionary biology seriously?
No wonder CD Ward, one of the most reasonable atheists on Tweb, has you on ignore.
I guess he simply doesn't appreciate your amusement quotient like I do...

Answer the simple question. Have you ever studied any life science or paleontology at the College level? What was the last book you read on either of these topics?

How did you "calculate" the odds you quoted in your previous post?

The odds of you ever posting anything that is even remotely an actual response to an actual point - 1 to 10 to the power of a billion. So I guess that there is even the slightest of hopes even for one as hopeless as you.

Sorry FN, I already used this joke on you...although I'm flattered, see if you can come up with something original for a change.

LGM - the resident village idiot...oh, sorry, I mean "skeptic".

More derivative tripe...teehee...you're such a hoot!

[Mark Little]

Its not whether this exact miracle follows ECREE principle. It is causing the question of what would constitute extraordinary evidence. I say if a person wants to use the ECREE principle they have to explain what would constitute extraordinary evidence.

Well in that case, no extraordinary evidence was required at all.

It would seem that after all the examples of when one would ask for extraordinary evidence that you still haven't picked up on it, so I'll give it one more try.

Extraordinary evidence requires a test that produces a result that is not within the normal bounds of experience or current scientific knowledge. What that actually means depends on the event requiring evidence. For example, time dilation predicted by the theory of relativity was counter to the theories of the day and went against all intuition. To show it was true, required an experiment that was so accurate that it would be able to detect time slowing down. These experiments were unusually complex requiring atomic clocks and satellites. This constituites extraordinary evidence.

The concept that matter is made up of atoms and these atoms are made up of particles which are made of of even smaller particles was, at the time, beyond the bounds of scientific experience and to prove it required the manufacture of atom smashers that kilometers in diameter and consume vast amounts of power to show that these particles exist. This constitutes extraordinary evidence.

I have my own criteria on miracle claims which I mention on this thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...5&page=4&pp=16

I'm sorry, but I can't see how you would use that to determine if that silly sun claim was or wasn't a miracle. How about you run us through how that would help you assess the validity of the claim, because I can't see that it would help even if I believed in the resurrection. What part of that message would allow you to determine if she was a fraud?

but to shorten it my main question for any miracle claim is what difference does it make? Why should I care?

I have no idea. The examples I've seen certainly don't give any indication that they are worth a jot.

The resurrection is used to both prove Jesus was God and what will happen to me in the future one day.

Only one of many claims of resurrection, but you are free to believe what you want.

This wet guy's miracle claim shows me nothing except to tell me that God has a weird waterfall sense of humor.

I guess that means that you would believe the story at face value and not even question its validity. If so, Wow!

What difference does his miracle claim make for my own life? It is an incomplete miracle.

I'm not even going to ask what an "incomplete miracle" is.