Can We Today Believe In Miracles?

[salvationfound]

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.

You don't understand. I'm not saying you can't ever use it I'm just
disagreeing with the way atheists use it for miracle claims like the resurrection
This guy does a better job explaining my point
http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/extraord.htm

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?

Well first off you asked how I deal with individual claims. I gave you my
criteria. If you don't like it then so be it but you have to admit I have a
criteria other than the ECREE principle.

But ok.

1. Does the miracle claim succeed in the same standard of evidence used for
any other event from history?

I don't believe it does since everything I personally examine with this video
tells me it is false. I do believe the Fatima event in 1917 succeeds but this
video does not.

2.Is there documented evidence for it outside of the source of that
miracle?

Do we have anybody other than the camera attesting to this event? I'm not
sure there is. The website talks about a witness from a similar event but
are they talking about the specific date the video talks about? Even if it
does pass 2 I still believe it doesn't pass 1.

3.Is there documented evidence that goes against the miracle claim?

You. your very post giving a logical explanation against the miracle claim
helps the miracle to not succeed number 3. Unlike the resurrection where I
haven't heard any convincing logical explanation that goes against that
miracle claim.

4.What I consider to be the most important question: Does it make a
difference to my life if the miracle claim is real?

Definitely not. It has no bearing on my life and my life won't be affected
whether I believe it or not. Same with the original fatima story of 1917. I
can believe it passed all other tests from 1-3 but if I still feel it doesn't affect
my life at all then it doesn't matter.

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

Yes and you have every right to reject my position but you see the point I'm
making.

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

Oh please tell me you were being sarcastic. What did I just tell you. What
difference does it make to my life? So God teleported him. So what?
Whether I believe it or not changes nothing in my life. That is the point I'm
making.

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

Yet your the one asking about how I go about looking at miracle claims. So
I answered. You don't agree with my criteria? Fine be my guest. I don't
agree with how the skeptic like David Hume uses the ECREE principle for the
resurrection.

[Johnny Skeptic]

During the time of Jesus, if it was his desire to show people that miracles exist, and that he could perform them, and if he actually performed lots of miracles, why didn't he perform them before the best audience possible, which would have been in the presence of Pontinus Pilate and a lot other Romans? God's modus operandi has always been to show his big toe, but nothing more, always preferring partial disclosure to full disclosure. He is basically saying "For now I'll give you an appetizer, but for reasons that I refuse to explain, you can't have the main course until after you die."

[FirstSunday33ad]

LGM gets ready to take the field....

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?

Wow, Lakie, you actually responded to a point made in a previous post. GOOD FOR YOU!!! Keep it up sweetie and it will soon become easy as an insult.

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)

Lakie you are so funny. You try to be clever and you only look like a adolescent being told he can't go out on Saturday night (sorry, you probably didn't get out much, your posts have all the earmarks of a very...er...frustrated...man).

So sorry, Lakie, but the odds against evolution wasn't my invention you silly little troll...er...man...they have been the subject of debate for years now. Maybe if you got out more you would know that...oops sorry, I forgot, you don't get out that much...

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?

you can't intelligently discuss communism or Christianity and you have CONSISTENTLY demonstrated that you can't intelligently discuss ANYTHING!!!

No wonder CD Ward, one of the most reasonable atheists on Tweb, has you on ignore.

That is rich. No, that is pathetic. CD Ward put me on "ignore" because I refused to follow his red herring. YOU on the other hand just can't stay away from the FS man can you my little darling?...

LGM prepares for his "rebuttle"...

I guess he simply doesn't appreciate your amusement quotient like I do...

And I love you to my little Bit...er...sweetie.

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?

Ah...Lakie, Lakie, Lakie....tell you want baby, I will answer your "simple-minded" question if you answer mine first: Have you ever studied theology, comparative mythology or ancient history at all?

Ah, WTH...I know you won't answer - you never do - Have I ever read, studied, followed with interest and stayed current of paleontology, biology, life sciences and evolutionary theory?

Why yes, I have. Why do you ask?

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.

see if you can come up with something original for a change. HOLY COW and JEEZ LOUIZE....Mr. Pot please meet Mrs. Kettle....

Good ta have ya back you troll loving, insult hurling, point missing, fact lacking, mouth breathing, hate spewing bigot you.

I MISSED YA....... (but my aim is getting better)

LGM takes flight again

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

"For now I'll give you an appetizer, but for reasons that I refuse to explain, you can't have the main course until after you die."

An infinite God would be required to reveal himself fully now? How would that be possible? And how do we know that more revelation, we could take it in?

Job 26:9-14 He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it. He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness. The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. By his power he churned up the sea; by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces. By his breath the skies became fair; his hand pierced the gliding serpent. And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?

Blessings,
Lee

[LGM]

So sorry, Lakie, but the odds against evolution wasn't my invention you silly little troll...er...man...they have been the subject of debate for years now.

As suspected, you have NOTHING to back up your previous ignorant assertion quoting very specific odds "against evolution". Just another vague reference and a pathetic dodge to try and cover-up your baseless tripe. You're credibilty and intellect are on display again FS...Thanks for amusing me.

Evolution is a FACT. It's been OBSERVED, you fool. The "odds" that it happens is "100 percent". I only hope that you get a bacterial infection from a newly evolved strain resistant to anti-biotics so the POINT is impressed upon you.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Johnny Skeptic wrote: For now I'll give you an appetizer, but for reasons that I refuse to explain, you can't have the main course until after you die.

Lee Merrill: An infinite God would be required to reveal himself fully now? How would that be possible?

Johnny: Fully would not be necessary. Answers to the following simple questions would do quite nicely:

Why do innocent animals have to suffer? Why did you cause a global flood instead of just killing all of the evil people like you killed the first born males in Israel? Why did you kill Ananias and Saphira? Why do your penalties for the sins of Adam and Eve have to be so harsh? Why is it taking so long for Jesus to come back? Why didn't you inspire prophecies that were unmistably inspired? Why are you never available for personal consultations?

Lee: And how do we know that more revelation, we could take it in?

Johnny: If we can't take it in, God should personally tell us so, and not thorugh human proxies. Your argument does not make any sense. It would not be difficult at all for anyone to take in a prophecy such as if Ezekiel had predicted Aleander's conquest of the island of Tyre centuries before Alexander was even born. Another good example would have been if Ezekiel had predicted the year that a Roman emperor named Nero would be born on a certain date.

[Didymus]

Johnny: Fully would not be necessary. Answers to the following simple questions would do quite nicely:

Why do innocent animals have to suffer? Why did you cause a global flood instead of just killing all of the evil people like you killed the first born males in Israel? Why did you kill Ananias and Saphira? Why do your penalties for the sins of Adam and Eve have to be so harsh? Why is it taking so long for Jesus to come back? Why didn't you inspire prophecies that were unmistably inspired?

Go Johnny go. So many wild questions, so little time?

[Johnny Skeptic]

Johnny Skeptic wrote: Fully would not be necessary. Answers to the following simple questions would do quite nicely:

Why do innocent animals have to suffer? Why did you cause a global flood instead of just killing all of the evil people like you killed the first born males in Israel? Why did you kill Ananias and Saphira? Why do your penalties for the sins of Adam and Eve have to be so harsh? Why is it taking so long for Jesus to come back? Why didn't you inspire prophecies that were unmistably inspired?

Didymus replied: Go Johnny go. So many wild questions, so little time?

Johnny: My questions are not wild at all. In fact, some Christians wonder about the very same questions that I asked and would not mind at all if God told them the answers.

[Mark Little]

You don't understand. I'm not saying you can't ever use it I'm just disagreeing with the way atheists use it for miracle claims like the resurrection.

It's ok as long as it's not applied to what I want to believe?

This guy does a better job explaining my point
http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/extraord.htm

He is wrong to suppose that this would be accepted as enough to provide evidence that the events took place as described, even if they weren't about the supernatural.

Let's take an actual example. A person writes that Baba caused miracles. The man was a respected career person and a scholar. There are a couple of other texts that support his claims.

Is this sufficent for you to believe that (a) there is a Baba and (b) that he caused miracles. Using the methodology that you use with the bible, why would you not believe in these historical documents?

I'm not a student of history, there are plenty of examples where people have written things that ultimately turned out to be wrong.

Let's take a hypothetical example. A left wing paper and it runs a story that George Bush was a war mongering fanatic (plenty have written this). Now it has a few sister papers that run this story (also true). Would they be enough to prove that he was a war mongering fanatic if they were found in a folder a couple of generations from now, or would you need to look at the wider picture to see if there was evidence elsewhere that supported this position? I suggest the latter.

The problem is that this wider evidence does not support the biblical positions on most things. They would have been clearly monumental times and events, but the other histories are curiously silent about them. The romans made no mention of Jesus, historians of the time did not mention Jesus, the earliest manuscripts of the NT come from many years after the events. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on these points).

While this is not conclusive proof that Jesus did not exist, it does cast some doubt on the NT as being historically accurate, since they do not intersect with the other contempory material.

[salvationfound]

It's ok as long as it's not applied to what I want to believe?

No it has to do with how you use it. The problem is the lack of methodology
used when applying the ECREE principle. They scream extraordinary
evidence needed but then rarely describe the possible extraordinary evidence
that would be required.

Is this sufficent for you to believe that (a) there is a Baba and (b) that he caused miracles. Using the methodology that you use with the bible, why would you not believe in these historical documents?

Let's take a hypothetical example. A left wing paper and it runs a story that George Bush was a war mongering fanatic (plenty have written this). Now it has a few sister papers that run this story (also true). Would they be enough to prove that he was a war mongering fanatic if they were found in a folder a couple of generations from now, or would you need to look at the wider picture to see if there was evidence elsewhere that supported this position? I suggest the latter.

Are you simply going to bring up more and more examples? I explained my
criteria and how I use them to answer about the claims you gave me. If I
answer these two claims are you going to start a new claim in your next
post?

I'll answer these two but I hope you don't keep piling on more claims it can
get very repetitive.

As for Baba I don't know enough about it to make any judgement right now.
Second you haven't explained how this claim passes every single one of my
criteria so that makes me skeptical of what you are telling me.

But let us assume for the moment it totally passes all four criteria. Is it
possible I might believe it? Yes. And that doesn't mean I have to end my
Christian beliefs. Remember the Bible itself talks about the possibility of
miracles happening outside of Christianity. Technically the devil can do
miracles if you think about it. So I can believe in miracles outside of God.

But as I have said I haven't looked into it enough to come to any definitive
conclusion.

As for the idea that George Bush is a war mongering fanatic. Is there any
documents that go against this idea? If there is isn't that a part of number
3 of my criteria?

The romans made no mention of Jesus, historians of the time did not mention Jesus, the earliest manuscripts of the NT come from many years after the events. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on these points).

While this is not conclusive proof that Jesus did not exist, it does cast some doubt on the NT as being historically accurate, since they do not intersect with the other contempory material.

The existence of Jesus is not an extraordinary claim that requires
extraordinary evidence so you can't use the ECREE principle. So I ask what
is the criteria needed for proof that any person from antiquity
existed? And remember your critera must apply not just to Jesus but to
everyone from antiquity. And don't even think of using ECREE because this
is not an extraordinary claim.

And as for the silence being somehow proof is Jesus the only figure from
history that has that little amount of evidence showing his existence? Is
there no one from history who has less than him?

Remember:
History was rather silent on Pilate.
Archaeology doesn't have much on Pilate. A Roman Governor for crying out
loud. We do have this:
http://www.bible-history.com/pontius...rchaeology.htm
so what criteria proves pilate but not Jesus as having existed?

History was rather silent on King David.
We do have this:
http://www.bible-history.com/archaeo...dan-stele.html

So it was so hard to find evidence for these guys for centuries. And we are
talking Kings and Governors.

So when it is hard to find evidence for Kings and Governors why is Jesus so
much more impossible to believe as historical?

Now I don't bring this up as a faith in the future saying one day we will have
the evidence for Jesus. All I'm saying is Jesus isn't the only important
historical figure that we have little evidence for. In fact I can think of 3
off the top of my head that seem less. Bhudda for one.

Again I ask: What is your criteria to prove the historicity of any historical
figure from antiquity? And how does this criteria prove every historical
figure that we consider real and doesn't prove Jesus?

[lee_merrill]

Hi Johnny,

Johnny: Answers to the following simple questions would do quite nicely...

Why do innocent animals have to suffer?
Could it be that God bears this? "Not a sparrow falls to the ground..."

Why did you cause a global flood instead of just killing all of the evil people like you killed the first born males in Israel?
Scripture records they were all evil, though.

Why did you kill Ananias and Saphira?
They sinned in the very presence of God? The more God is present, the more serious sin becomes, "How is it that Satan has so filled your heart ... You have not lied to men but to God" (Acts 5:3-4).

Why do your penalties for the sins of Adam and Eve have to be so harsh?
Again, do we see he bears them?

John 1:36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"

Why is it taking so long for Jesus to come back?
He said he would be away a long time? (Lk. 19:11, Mt. 24:48, Mt. 25:5-6).

Why didn't you inspire prophecies that were unmistakably inspired?
You may rebuild Babylon, if you want to! But see Isa. 13:19, Jer. 25:12, Jer. 51:26, and let us remember Saddam Hussein's recent attempt. Pretty unmistakable!

Lee: And how do we know that more revelation, we could take it in?

Johnny: If we can't take it in, God should personally tell us so, and not thorugh human proxies.

Well, he did, in one instance!

John 16:12 I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.

And I think we may apply this to ourselves.

Job 36:26 How great is God-- beyond our understanding!

Blessings,
Lee

[Doubting John]

I'm waiting for someone to actually deal with what I wrote about David Hume and J.L. Mackie's arguments against miracles.

What do you make of the arguments presented there?

[HyperHobbes]

It's a miracle that more women are not attracted to me. Granted there are already teeming throngs of them, but still, it's a flat out miracle that more are not, so, there are miracles.

HHobbes

[Doubting John]

People have called my posts irrational. Really?

Then let me reissue the challenge here.

I'm still waiting for someone to actually deal with what I wrote about David Hume and J.L. Mackie's arguments against miracles.

What do you make of the arguments presented there?

Anyone?

Anyone?

[Johnny Skeptic]

I don't understand all of this talk about miracles. No one who I know of would oppose an extraterrestrial being, a God or otherwise, who came to earth and started curing all of the sick people in the world. So far, no such being has ever come to earth, identified himself and healed all of the sick people in the world. The God of the Bible would not likely clearly identify himself and heal all of the sick people in the world because for thousands of years he has proven that he doesn't want to. Why did Jesus limit his healing ministry and his preaching to the general area of Palestine?