Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1105 of 1540 (825024)
12-06-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1094 by Faith
12-05-2017 3:26 PM


Re: Nature of the supernatural
Faith writes:
"Outside the bounds" is a risky formulation because all the phenomena being called supernatural are certainly within the bounds of the universe, just not of the same stuff. But we are misusing the concept of "supernatural" if we simply confine it to the unmeasurable untestable nonphysical realities we're talking about here, though it is a handy shorthand I fall into too. They are no less natural for being unmeasurable. I don't know the best way to conceptualize these things but if they exist they are real the same way the physical material things are real, and I don't see any reason to think of them as a separate universe since they interpenetrate the physical universe we live in.
You say a lot here, but the main point seems to be that the term "supernatural" is misleading because it implies that the supernatural is not of this universe, when the reality is that it is very much part of this universe, just unmeasurable.
But your paragraph appears to waffle a bit about whether the supernatural can be physical. Of course it can be physical. The miracles of the Bible usually result in exactly the "same stuff" as our natural universe. The Plagues of Egypt were just frogs and locust and hail and so forth, common stuff in our universe. Jesus turned water of our universe into wine of our universe which was drunk and digested and excreted by people of our universe. The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who gave birth to a male baby of our universe and who died just as any other crucified man of our universe would die. Quite obviously the supernatural can be of the exact "same stuff" as our natural universe and is not confined to the unphysical.
About this one portion:
They are no less natural for being unmeasurable.
All things that are unmeasurable (I assume you mean undetectable) are indistinguishable from the non-existent.
And about this other portion:
...I don't see any reason to think of them as a separate universe since they interpenetrate the physical universe we live in.
I understand this to be saying that the supernatural permeates our universe.
I suppose the best analogy is the mind or the soul. Extreme materialists may claim these don't have reality but they must have the same kind of reality as demons and angels so they serve as a model for this nonphysical universe that is wrongly called supernatural.
Boiling this down, you've just said that "the mind or the soul..." must be real so it can "...serve as a model for this nonphysical universe..." What are you trying to say here?
I do agree that the soul has "the same kind of reality as demons and angels."
True miracles on the order reported in the Bible are suspensions of the laws of the physical universe that only God can do, since He created it and runs it.
But a miracle could occur where it can be measured and analyzed. There is nothing in the Bible prohibiting God from performing a miracle in a laboratory. I understand we should not test the Lord our God, but he could do it if it chose, right? And isn't that proscription just a bit too convenient?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1094 by Faith, posted 12-05-2017 3:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1114 by Faith, posted 12-06-2017 5:18 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1106 of 1540 (825025)
12-06-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1099 by GDR
12-05-2017 3:56 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
GDR writes:
In that case then so are miracles, (on the assumption that they really happened), are a part of our physical universe because they affect it as well.
Anything detectable and therefore amenable to study is part of our physical universe. Got a miracle for us to study?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1099 by GDR, posted 12-05-2017 3:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1107 by GDR, posted 12-06-2017 4:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1108 of 1540 (825035)
12-06-2017 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1107 by GDR
12-06-2017 4:09 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Anything detectable and therefore amenable to study is part of our physical universe. Got a miracle for us to study?
Creation
Which one? The one described in Genesis, or the one we're already studying concerning how the Big Bang came about? If the former, how do you propose we study this scientifically? If the latter, what makes it a miracle?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1107 by GDR, posted 12-06-2017 4:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1122 by GDR, posted 12-07-2017 1:48 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1119 of 1540 (825048)
12-06-2017 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1114 by Faith
12-06-2017 5:18 PM


Re: Nature of the supernatural
Faith writes:
Something like that. It's not outside natura as the term implies, there is nothing outside nature except God Himself.
This introduces another nomenclature contradiction. According to you the supernatural actually resides within the universe, but God, who is also supernatural, lies outside the universe.
Miracles ARE physical, of course. There's a problem with talking about the supernatural in general which includes a lot of nonphysical realities, beings or entities anyway, that are nevertheless natural and not supernatural, because they are part of the the created order. It's just hard to get all this said clearly, and some of it is also just beyond our understanding.
You say things like this a lot, and oftentimes I don't respond to them, but I don't want you to lose track of my position, so let me say something this time. The one thing you just said that I think is honest was "some of it is also just beyond our understanding," and that understates it by a long shot. There's a reason that you also say "It's just hard to get all this said clearly," and that's because your beliefs are a mass of contradictions unsupported by anything resembling evidence in the normal sense of the word.
God does not want you to know, He wants you to believe,...
This is advice that you yourself should follow. You do not yourself believe without knowing. Rather, you believe because you think you know, and you think you know because you tell yourself evidence is what the Bible tells you so.
He has no interest in proving anything to everybody, all the God haters and scoffers.
After all your time here you still don't understand. Those who do not believe in your God are not haters or scoffers. For the most part they don't give your God a second thought. They no more hate or scoff at your God than they hate or scoff at Peter Pan or Sherlock Holmes, other characters they don't believe are real.
The resentment and antagonism that often arises in your threads is usually directed at you, and not for your religious beliefs, but for the way you treat people who don't believe the same as you, and for your attitudes of hate, for instance toward the LGBT. Jesus was all about love, and he didn't care what you were, whether prostitute, criminal or gay. Even if you're going to disapprove of homosexuality because of what the Bible says, you must also listen to 1 Peter 2:17 to "Honor all men."
There's enough evidence to persuade you if you had an honest desire to know these things.
That's Tinkerbell thinking. Incredibly you follow this by saying:
For we "walk by faith and not by sight."
I think you're very confused within your own mind. You keep alternating encouragements to have faith with assertions that evidence exists thereby eliminating the need for faith.
ABE: What exactly would be accomplished by God's performing a miracle in a laboratory anyway? It's still a one-time event that would be evidenced only by witnesses. Photos? You think that would persuade anyone?
Given that we have no idea of the nature of the miracle, how would anyone know what the laboratory setup would be? And where does it say in the Bible that miracles are one-time events? After the resurrection Jesus appeared to people over and over again. Were it to happen today he couldn't help but be recorded on multiple phones. As the song in the play goes, "Why'd you chose such a backward time and such a strange land?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1114 by Faith, posted 12-06-2017 5:18 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1120 of 1540 (825053)
12-06-2017 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1111 by Faith
12-06-2017 5:03 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
As I said, telling the supernatural from the natural is no harder than telling when you are experiencing something while awake or dreaming. It takes no superpowers at all. Even you could do it.
Really. It's that easy. Like when Mary Magdalene gazed upon the resurrected Jesus and supposed him to be the gardener in John 20:14-15? And you say this as if you have a lot of experience recognizing the supernatural. Pardon me for, well, let's just say you're talking through your hat.
"Not been established." How many times do I have to point out that you can't verify the existence of something that occurs once and leaves only the evidence of witnesses. Well, you COULD establish it by accepting that witness evidence, as Chrsitians do, but since you wont', no supernatural for you.
This is, again, a Tinkerbell argument. Things that are real are real for everyone, not just for those who believe.
Actually no. They really do merely believe it because they are habituated to it, they really have no evidence for it at all, they just grew up in it, they've learned its rituals, but that's it. Sometimes demons may manifest in other religions but all thqt proves is the supernatural, not anything like Christianity's claim to be the revelation of God.
This is a paragraph full of nonsense and self-serving unsupported assertions. The reality is that Christians are as "habituated" to their religion as adherents to other religions are to theirs. They have the same kind of evidence you have. There is no evidence of demons. Christianity's claim to be the revelation of God is nothing more than a claim, let alone evidence of the Christian God, or any God or gods at all. You and all the other religionists of the world are merely doing whatever it is you have to do to fill a need that many (most?) people have for a higher purpose in life.
Your next paragraph just declares your beliefs without support. I'll comment on a few.
Christianity does have evidence and not only evidence for the miracles in the Bible,...
You have words in a book, not evidence, and true faith doesn't demand evidence.
Comparing Christianity to the other religions is beyond ludicrous.
What are you afraid of? That a comparison might reveal Christianity a religion like any other?
Christianity IS the yardstick by which all other religions SHOULD be judged,...
There are no yardsticks. How could there be any yardsticks since there are no rules for what makes a religion? You're really just cheering for your team, which has no effect on the action on the field.
...and it gives an explanation for all of them as the work of demons because of the Fall;...
You're getting deep into woo now.
...and ARE judged by Christians,...
I'm sure there are equally rigid adherents of other religions who judge Christianity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1111 by Faith, posted 12-06-2017 5:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1147 by Faith, posted 12-08-2017 12:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1123 of 1540 (825069)
12-07-2017 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1122 by GDR
12-07-2017 1:48 AM


Re: the nature of evidence
GDR writes:
The fact that the universe came into existence from essentially nothing,...
This is currently an area of active study. What came before the Big Bang isn't known. "Essentially nothing" is only one of the possibilities. No hint of any miracles has yet emerged from any observation or theoretical analysis. But they'll keep looking and thinking.
...and from in that sentient life was able to evolve.
Not the origin of life? Just the evolution of "sentient life," by which you must mean us? Well, okay. Where do you see the miracle? We're pretty much just like other mammals. Some have bigger, sharper teeth, some are faster, some have thicker fur, and some have bigger brains, like us. The evolution of our brains is an area of very active research.
When asked for a miracle to study you suggested "Creation" in your Message 1107, then when asked to be more specific you produced the two suggestions I considered above, and both are already areas of active research.
But you interpreted the request backwards. When I asked in Message 1106 if you had any miracles for us to study, it wasn't a request for suggestions for where to look for miracles. It was a request that you point us at an actual miracle that we already *know* (supposedly) is a miracle we can study. Here's a list of Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles. This is just one man's opinion of the top 10 miracles, and feel free to select your own miracle for study from anywhere you like, but at least this list provides you a starting point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1122 by GDR, posted 12-07-2017 1:48 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1130 by GDR, posted 12-07-2017 6:35 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1135 of 1540 (825117)
12-08-2017 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1130 by GDR
12-07-2017 6:35 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
GDR writes:
i'm not talking about anything before the BB. As I understand it there was a point where time=0 and the question of what was before that is meaningless.
A singularity is as close to nothing as you can get and from minimal understanding it was essentially energy anyway and without a physical dimension. From that comes the universe as we know it today.
Well, remember this is an area of active study. What you describe is just one possibility, the one from over a half century ago. See the Wikipedia article on the initial singularity for a description of some of the problems, and mentions of some other possibilities such as colliding branes. Possibly no current hypothesis is right. Some cosmologists are even beginning to question inflation. But we don't want to turn this into a discussion of cosmic origins. The thing you said that's most relevant to this thread is:
Looks pretty miraculous to me.
My answer would have run pretty much along the same lines as Tangle's in Message 1131, so I'll be brief, but I would have used the same example. What would a caveman say upon seeing lightning? "Looks pretty miraculous to me."
Basing claims of miracles upon natural phenomena guarantees constant retreat as the sphere of human knowledge expands. The definition of miracle is not, "That which we do not at present understand." In the history of science there has never been a natural phenomenon that once understood was found to be a miracle. You're operating with very thin odds when you place your bet that this one particular natural phenomenon, the origin of the universe, was a miracle. At present nothing we see when we gaze out into the cosmos looks miraculous, so why not just accept the origin of the universe as a miracle based upon faith rather than as a miracle that can be scientifically studied, because the entire history of science is one of resolving phenomena we don't understand into natural phenomena that we do.
As you well know the Biblical claims of miracles are, if they happened, one time events and aren't available for study.
How can you say this? You just offered the origin of the universe as a miracle for scientific study, and the origin of the universe is the first miracle in the Bible. Which way is it? Is the origin of the universe "available for study" or not?
As you well know the Biblical claims of miracles are, if they happened, one time events and aren't available for study.
As I reminded Faith, Jesus appeared to people after the resurrection time after time, so obviously miracles are not "one time events". Besides that, things that actually happen leave evidence behind. Most evidence from 30 AD hasn't survived until today, but it is claimed that miracles continue to happen and that they are witnessed by millions. Fine. Where's the evidence of these miracles, the recent ones? I gave you a list of contemporary miracles at Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles, so select one of those and let's see if science has anything to say about it. Or select any other contemporary miracle you like.
I have answered your question,...
Not really. You have attempted to end the discussion, but you haven't answered the question.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1130 by GDR, posted 12-07-2017 6:35 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1139 by Faith, posted 12-08-2017 11:34 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1149 of 1540 (825140)
12-08-2017 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1124 by Faith
12-07-2017 3:16 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith in reply to PaulK writes:
The evidence available, all witness evidence, is quite sufficient, even, yes, good evidence. The witnesses are trustworthy to anyone able to make such judgments, and Jesus says so anyway.. Your judgment is seriously lacking, and of course that I cannot help.
I think you were pretty much done when you said to PaulK, "I have nothing else to offer you." You've gone into your parrot mode of repeating baseless assertions.
I don't have a problem at all because proving anything to you is impossible. Your reasons are just a lot of hot air out of a prejudiced mind. The manner of the writers of the NT and the quality of the witnesses are unimpeachable to anyone who can think clearly.
More baseless assertions mixed in with baseless personal accusations. Let's just leave the personal out of this and discuss the evidence you have. Which you've already admitted doesn't exist.
And your accusations don't amount to an argument.
PaulK isn't using accusations as argument. He's noting that "blustering and bullying" is "neither honest nor productive." He's prodding you to get off your insult merry-go-round and actually engage in discussion that is more than mere baseless assertion or even simply made up.
Millions have been persuaded by religions you regard as false.
No, millions have NOT been "persuaded" by other religions.
I don't know whether any good statistics exist on this, but Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group from the Pew Research Center contains some interesting information. By 2050 or so Muslims will likely outnumber Christians because of a higher fertility rate. But even more interesting is what it has to say about conversion rates:
quote:
Meanwhile, religious switching — which is expected to hinder the growth Christians by an estimated 72 million between 2015 and 2060 — is not expected to have a negative net impact on Muslim population growth.
In other words, at present and going forward Christianity has a net negative conversion rate and Islam does not.
Only Christianity actually persuades, because of its inherent attractiveness and believability.
Except that according to the Pew Research Center Christianity is gaining converts at a slower rate than Islam.
Losing a debate at EvC is pretty much evidence in itself of being right.
So is the converse true, that winning a debate at EvC is evidence that you're wrong? Don't you usually declare yourself the winner in most debates here? Following your logic, once you've declared yourself the winner that means you're wrong. In other words, we've just been treated to more Faith nonsense, especially since in reality judgment lies in the hands of onlookers, not participants.
The evidence is more than sufficient, and further evidence is that Christianity turned the western world from a demon-run superstitious nightmare...
"A demon-run superstitious nightmare" seems just as descriptive of Christianity as what came before. You know, I bet the Romans echoed much the same sentiments as you: "Boy, those Greeks, what a superstitious nightmare of a religion they had - we're so much ahead of them what with Jupiter and the rest."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1124 by Faith, posted 12-07-2017 3:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1151 by Faith, posted 12-08-2017 4:33 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1155 of 1540 (825147)
12-08-2017 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1139 by Faith
12-08-2017 11:34 AM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:
As I reminded Faith, Jesus appeared to people after the resurrection time after time, so obviously miracles are not "one time events".
Each appearance was a one-time event,...
Each freezing of a water droplet into ice is a one-time event, but they're all the same thing, just as all of Jesus' appearances after his resurrection were all the same thing. Miracles are not one time events. Appearances of the Virgin Mary are particularly common.
...that didn't leave anything but witness evidence. You can't study something that leaves only witness evidence. At least according to you. If you took that evidence seriously you could indeed study it, but you don't.
As has been explained, eyewitness evidence is the worst and most unreliable form of evidence. Research tells us this is so. DNA evidence freeing prisoners convicted by eyewitness testimony happens frequently, and is a real world demonstration of the unreliability of eyewitness reports. Research also shows that people, in the absence of other evidence, do no better than chance at telling when someone's testimony is at odds with what really happened. Plus the Bible eyewitness information is hearsay information written by credulous believers.
Most evidence from 30 AD hasn't survived until today, but it is claimed that miracles continue to happen and that they are witnessed by millions. Fine. Where's the evidence of these miracles, the recent ones? I gave you a list of contemporary miracles at Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles, so select one of those and let's see if science has anything to say about it. Or select any other contemporary miracle you like.
I guess I missed that. Why don't you select one and explain how it wouid have left the traces that would prove to you there had been a miracle?
Thought my post was to GDR you're more than welcome to step in, but in that case I asked you first, plus I don't believe in miracles and so have no miracles to choose from. Pick something that's a miracle to you. Please, no Virgin Mary sightings.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1139 by Faith, posted 12-08-2017 11:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1157 by Faith, posted 12-08-2017 8:45 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1158 of 1540 (825152)
12-08-2017 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1147 by Faith
12-08-2017 12:19 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:
As I said, telling the supernatural from the natural is no harder than telling when you are experiencing something while awake or dreaming. It takes no superpowers at all. Even you could do it.
Really. It's that easy. Like when Mary Magdalene gazed upon the resurrected Jesus and supposed him to be the gardener in John 20:14-15?
She knew she was seeing an actual man,...
Yes, exactly, she had no idea she was witnessing a miracle. You said Jesus' appearances were miracles. Also, she didn't even recognize Jesus. So much for the ease of recognizing the supernatural.
And you say this as if you have a lot of experience recognizing the supernatural. Pardon me for, well, let's just say you're talking through your hat.
I've had a fair amount of experience as a matter of fact,...
Oh, yes, of course, you're much better at recognizing the supernatural than Mary Magdalene, if you do say so yourself.
...most of it during the period when I was avidly studying religions and the occult before I became a Christian, including conversations with other people who had had such experiences, in other religions or just spontaneously. There is no confusing any kind of supernatural event, apparition or whatnot, with a purely mental event such as a dream.
Sounds like a self-reinforcing delusional community.
The apparition I saw was an impersonation of a mentally disturbed homeless man who had threatened me on the street one day. My best guess is that the man was demon possessed and it was a demonic impersonation that appeared in my room threatening me again. He disappeared in a flash when I invoked Jesus Christ. The hair on the back of my neck was standing on end.
And what was your drug of choice that night?
Yes and if you saw an apparition as I did you too would know it was real.
Everything I see is real, not an apparition, and not supernatural.
The reason I think I had such experiences is that I was heavily involved in reading about religions and the occult, and even practicing some occultic oracles. That sort of thing will open a person to such experiences. I actually felt the atmosphere around me to be sort of electrically charged at times during that period. Believe me, well no don't bother since you would rather believe your own theories than anything any witness has to say, but I do know the difference between the real physical world and intrusions from some other world, and dreams and other phenomena my own mind produces. And I wasn't even doing drugs.
Well, I guess it's progress that even you understand what you're saying sounds drug induced.
And yours is a paragraph full of ignorant prejudice.
Sure, Faith, I'm "prejudiced" against things like made up demons. In that case I'm "prejudiced" against leprechauns and Santa Claus, too.
It still remains true that what you said is full of nonsense and self-serving unsupported assertions. Even you recognize that the things you're saying are pretty crazy since you have to deny taking drugs. But that's exactly what it sounds like, that drugs have screwed up your mind and now you think demons, angels and apparitions have been your frequent companions.
The reality is that Christians are as "habituated" to their religion as adherents to other religions are to theirs.
Some are, but it's not how one becomes a Christian, though people may deceive themselves about that. You have to be born again to be a Christian, whether you grew up in it or converted later as I did.
Yeah, you guys are pretty habituated to this "born again" stuff.
How certain you are of your absolutely unevidenced unexperienced purely theoretical prejudices,...
Well, that's quite a bit addled. Prejudice is the wrong word, but sticking with your vocabulary choices, how can one be "prejudiced" against the existence of the unevidenced? Things that are real leave evidence behind, and the nonsense you talk about doesn't. Therefore, not real.
You next completely screw up your quoting. I'm not going to fix it.
Ah well. See, this discussion SHOULD be over. It should never have been started.
You just can't help yourself, can you. Naturally given your history your word means nothing and I will assume you'll be continuing the discussion.
I'm sure there are equally rigid adherents of other religions who judge Christianity.
Of course there are. But a careful, honest and literate study should reveal the huge differences. I won't hold my breath.
The differences lie in the details and are minimal. All you religionists believe in things for which there is no evidence. Demons, angels, sprites, devas, rituals, liturgies, it's all the basically the same made up stuff.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1147 by Faith, posted 12-08-2017 12:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1164 by Faith, posted 12-09-2017 2:40 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1159 of 1540 (825153)
12-08-2017 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1151 by Faith
12-08-2017 4:33 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:
"A demon-run superstitious nightmare" seems just as descriptive of Christianity as what came before. You know, I bet the Romans echoed much the same sentiments as you: "Boy, those Greeks, what a superstitious nightmare of a religion they had - we're so much ahead of them what with Jupiter and the rest."
Actually, no.
Actually, yes. You're working very hard to miss the point. The Romans didn't adapt the Greek religion unchanged but with new names for the gods. They made lots of changes, but that's not the point. The point is that bad-mouthing other religions has a long history signifying nothing, which is all you're doing. You credulously believe anything bad you hear about another religion, then you post it here.
But I believe you are right that this discussion has been over for some time.
I didn't say anything like that. I said you're in parrot-mode repeating baseless assertions over and over again.
The problem is that I keep being drawn to answer further enormities you all post here long after it's over by any reasonable measure.
Your judgment is seriously flawed. The discussion isn't over. You yourself might be unable to muster any evidence or meaningful arguments for your position, but the discussion isn't over until you stop responding, and we're years past believing you when you declare a discussion over.
...Islam by the sword...
Christianity by the sword, the longbow, the gun, the cannon, the crusades, the Inquisition, slavery, cultural destruction, etc...
By now the anti-Chrsitian forces have been hammering so long at the only true religion they've succeeded in convincing people of all the lies about it that are promoted here.
That would be a self-reference.
The Antichrist is on the ascendant.
The antichrist is fictional.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1151 by Faith, posted 12-08-2017 4:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1161 by jar, posted 12-08-2017 9:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1163 by Faith, posted 12-09-2017 2:38 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1160 of 1540 (825154)
12-08-2017 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1157 by Faith
12-08-2017 8:45 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:
Unless I missed something...
You missed something.
I don't see anything on that list I'd even want to call a miracle, which I regard as something only God could do by suspending the laws of physics. These all sound like demon tricks or manifestations, if the reports are true of course.
The last sentence of my paragraph was, "Or select any other contemporary miracle you like."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1157 by Faith, posted 12-08-2017 8:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1162 by Faith, posted 12-09-2017 2:37 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1168 of 1540 (825170)
12-09-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1162 by Faith
12-09-2017 2:37 AM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:
I don't know of any contemporary miracles,...
You need a story that makes sense. You're saying that though millions have observed miracles, not a single one of those miracles occurred during our lifetimes? None are occurring now? You've observed all these supernatural phenomena - are they not miracles?
Given the ubiquitousness of cameras and smart phones, why has no supernatural apparition ever been recorded in a video? Wait a minute, of course they've been recorded in videos, how could they not? Let me check Google...yep, sure enough, tons of videos of supernatural apparitions. These aren't miracles?
Anyway, here's a YouTube video of five miracles recorded on video. How could you not know about them?
I thought you were aiming to give us an example of a miracle that had some other kind of evidence, since, as you said, if it occurs in the real world it should have such evidence. What happened to that project?
Again, you joined a subdiscussion between me and GDR, which is fine, but you haven't bothered to inform yourself about it, so go back to Message 1106 and read the subdiscussion forward. I never proposed "to give us an example of a miracle." I don't believe miracles exist, so it's absurd to think I would ever say such a thing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1162 by Faith, posted 12-09-2017 2:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1174 by Faith, posted 12-09-2017 3:04 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1169 of 1540 (825172)
12-09-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1163 by Faith
12-09-2017 2:38 AM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:
The Antichrist according to the Protestant Reformers is the Pope. Not fictional.
The pope is a real person. Of course he's not fictional:
The antichrist is imaginary and does not exist, though you can find images of him, too:
If is of course fully consistent of you to denigrate people and things you don't like. You are a cauldron of hate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1163 by Faith, posted 12-09-2017 2:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1173 by Faith, posted 12-09-2017 2:45 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1170 of 1540 (825174)
12-09-2017 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1164 by Faith
12-09-2017 2:40 AM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:
It's quite clear that Mary Magdalene didn't have a problem recognizing Jesus because his appearance was a miracle.
Jar's frequent question is appropriate here: "Have you even read the Bible?" It clearly says she thought he was a gardener.
That's some weird idea of your own.
Well now you're just lying. I'm just reading the Bible, John 20:14-15:
quote:
14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15 He asked her, Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.
In any case I was talking about the difference between a dream and an apparition. Jesus after the resurrection was no apparition. Where did I say Jesus' appearances were miracles?
You can't seem to make up your mind whether apparitions are miracles or not. Just a few short messages ago you denied awareness of any contemporary miracles, which means you didn't consider the apparitions that appeared to you were miracles. Now you're implying that because Jesus wasn't an apparition that his appearances weren't miracles. Yet that's precisely what you've been implying. This is from your Message 1139 from yesterday, where you first began participating in the subdiscussion between me and GDR:
Faith in Message 1139 writes:
As I reminded Faith, Jesus appeared to people after the resurrection time after time, so obviously miracles are not "one time events".
Each appearance was a one-time event, Percy, that didn't leave anything but witness evidence. You can't study something that leaves only witness evidence. At least according to you. If you took that evidence seriously you could indeed study it, but you don't.
If you didn't think Jesus' appearances were miracles, that was the time to say so.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1164 by Faith, posted 12-09-2017 2:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1172 by Faith, posted 12-09-2017 2:15 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024