Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1021 of 1540 (824640)
12-01-2017 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1020 by PaulK
12-01-2017 2:00 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
I'm not sure I believe in healing miracles today. I believe they could occur but I don't believe God has any reason to grant them. However, if they did occur, as long as you have that caution in your statement about how organic illnesses may spontaneously reverse we couldn't have the kind of evidence that would prove there was a miracle to your satisfaction. I don't know why but amputated limbs are never claimed to be healed.
Paranormal abilities aren't miracles, properly speaking, and my impression is they are not predictable enough to be tested.
The problem with Biblical prophecy is that it IS vague, but also even when it's completely clear, such as in the Book of Daniel, even though it makes a logical mess of the text, and makes Daniel out to be a liar Metzger could just claim the prophecy was made after the event.
These aren't really relevant examples in context anyway. The question is about the kind of miracles Jesus did where you wouldn't have medical records, and wehre any written attestation is easily dismissed as everybody has been doing on this thread. The question is how there could aver be acceptable evidence of that sort of miralce, for Percy or you or whoever.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1020 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 2:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1023 by Faith, posted 12-01-2017 2:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1024 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2017 2:48 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1031 by PaulK, posted 12-02-2017 4:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1022 of 1540 (824641)
12-01-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1015 by ringo
12-01-2017 10:38 AM


Re: the nature of evidence
They talk about miracles. Historical accounts don't talk about miracles.
Well...
Newes From Scotland, 1591 contains reference to Witch Magic:
quote:
Againe it is confessed, that the said christened Cat was the cause that the Kinges Maiesties Ship at his comming foorth of Denmarke, had a contrary winde to the rest of his Ships, then being in his companye, which thing was most strange and true, as the Kings Maiestie ac∣knowledgeth, for when the rest of the Shippes had a faire and good winde, then was the winde contrarye and altogither against his Maiestie: and further the saide witche declared, that his Maiestie had neuer come safelye from the Sea, if his faith had not preuailed aboue their enten∣tions.
But its a historical account of the torture of some people on the orders, and supervision of King James VI of Scotland.
Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews:
quote:
at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour.
...
I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1015 by ringo, posted 12-01-2017 10:38 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1023 of 1540 (824642)
12-01-2017 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1021 by Faith
12-01-2017 2:17 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Have to take that back. I do know of some healing miracles, for instance the instantaneous healing of a shattered ankle bone which was a WWII war wound. This was the Dutch Christian Brother Andrew's experience, who was called to smuggle Bibles into the Iron Curtain countries after the war. No way to prove it, just want to correct my statement. There's a reason in this case too, that he'd be on his feet a lot in the service of his mission.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1021 by Faith, posted 12-01-2017 2:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1024 of 1540 (824643)
12-01-2017 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1021 by Faith
12-01-2017 2:17 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
quote:
However, if they did occur, as long as you have that caution in your statement about how organic illnesses may spontaneously reverse we couldn't have the kind of evidence that would prove there was a miracle to your satisfaction.
I didn’t say that ALL organic conditions spontaneously reverse, just that if some do we shouldn’t count such cases as miracles. If we know something can happen anyway how can we call it a miracle ?
quote:
Paranormal abilities aren't miracles, properly speaking, and my impression is they are not predictable enough to be tested.
They are close enough that the same considerations might apply.
quote:
The problem with Biblical prophecy is that it IS vague, but also even when it's completely clear, such as in the Book of Daniel, even though it makes Daniel out to be a liar Metzger could just claim the prophecy was made after the event.
The predictions up to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (including most of his reign) do seem to have been made after the events - but then I did say that you needed to be able to show that the prophecies were made before the event, and you can’t. Metzger is going with the evidence. And all the prophecies of Daniel said to come later either failed or require creative interpretation.
quote:
These aren't really relevant examples in context anyway. The question is about the kind of miracles Jesus did where you wouldn't have medical records, and wehre any written attestation is easily dismissed as everybody has been doing on this thread. The question is how there could aver be acceptable evidence of that sort of miralce, for Percy or you or whoever.
It’s difficult, perhaps impossible, but that really isn’t our fault. The evidence isn’t even as good as it could be. If God had merely stirred Philo of Alexandria to note one of Jesus’ miracles you would be noticeably better off. That would be nowhere good enough but it would be better.
But you were the one claiming to have good evidence - if that isn’t even possible, that just makes your claim foolish as well as false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1021 by Faith, posted 12-01-2017 2:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1025 of 1540 (824645)
12-01-2017 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1019 by Faith
12-01-2017 1:59 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:
People saw Lazarus alive, then saw him dead, saw him wrapped for burial and buried, smelled him when he started to stink, saw Jesus come and command him to get up, saw him walk out of the tombwhen Jesus raised him.
Sorry Faith but there is no evidence there of any miracle.
Faith writes:
People saw the water pots at the wedding, saw them filled with water, saw Jesus cause one to change to wine, saw the wine immediately after they saw the water and Jesus turning it to wine.
Sorry Faith, not only is there no evidence of a miracle there but it is also not what the story actually says. Have you ever read the Bible Faith?
In fact there is no evidence of any miracle in any of your accounts. There may be things that cannot be explained but there is no evidence of a miracle.;
You need to try again.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1019 by Faith, posted 12-01-2017 1:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1044 by Faith, posted 12-02-2017 3:59 PM jar has replied

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


Message 1026 of 1540 (824656)
12-01-2017 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1017 by Faith
12-01-2017 1:41 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:
Could you please describe how a miracle could ever be evidenced in a scientific way or "real world" way? Because I don't think it's possible. I think miracles can only be known by testimony of witnesses, except of course to the witnesses themselves. Meaning: If written testimony isn't acceptable evidence of miracles nobody could ever believe in a miracle even if there are many real miracles.
I don't think I have any good answers for you. From a scientific perspective, theoretically miracles should not exist, and from an experimental/observational standpoint they've never been observed. Miracles seem to be the realm of fantasy (I'm not sure whether to classify fantasy and the supernatural as separate things or as the same thing) and religion. Fantasy, by definition not part of reality, is not amenable to scientific study.
But concerning the miracles of religion, I think you and GDR believe they're real phenomena. Given that science has no answers for a claimed phenomena for which there is no theoretical, experimental or scientifically observable/detectable evidence, there are a couple avenues science could take in forming an opinion.
One could be that given the lack of theoretical support and physical evidence that science cannot take a position. Miracles might exist, they might not.
Another avenue, and the one that I've taken, is that given that miracles are a violation of the natural laws of the universe, i.e., they're supernatural, they cannot exist as part of natural reality. That's because if miracles did exist as part of natural reality then they'd just be another natural phenomenon and therefore not miraculous.
I guess it all comes down to whether you have faith that the supernatural exists, and faith that it's been observed many times.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1017 by Faith, posted 12-01-2017 1:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1046 by Faith, posted 12-02-2017 4:29 PM Percy has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1027 of 1540 (824665)
12-01-2017 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1013 by Percy
11-30-2017 2:30 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Percy writes:
We may be talking at cross purposes. In the paragraph you were responding to I was talking about the gospels as evidence of miracles, not the gospels as history. I set the context right at the beginning of my paragraph when I said, "Concerning miracles..."
Yes, but the Gospel accounts of miracles certainly appear to be written to say that the miracles are historical, that they actually happened at a specific time and place. That constitutes evidence. We can choose to accept the accounts as historical, metaphorical, falsified or mistaken.
I think there is some non-specific collaborating evidence. Firstly as a theist I accept that this world and our lives are the result of a miracle or miracles. (I believe these took place through a series of mostly or all random processes.) Therefore I accept that miracles are possible.
I also believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is by far the best explanation for the rise of the early church. As I believe that then I am prepared tentatively to accept the accounts of miracle as essentially historical, (with likely a bit of colour added. )
Obviously none of that is conclusive and particularly as these occurrences aren't part of our experience it does become a matter of faith, but as I said before I found no other set of beliefs that make sense of my life and the world of my experience.
Percy writes:
The scientific method is much more appropriate for examining the scientific claims you want to make for the gospels, primarily that physical phenomena know as miracles exist and have happened, for example, that Jesus turned the water into wine.
The very nature of a miracle is that it is not of the natural world and can't be tested scientifically.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1013 by Percy, posted 11-30-2017 2:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1035 by Percy, posted 12-02-2017 8:39 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1028 of 1540 (824667)
12-01-2017 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1014 by Tangle
11-30-2017 2:43 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Tangle writes:
Now I accept that we know much more about how the BoM came about than the bible which has given us both reasonable cause for doubt - but they both claim to be true. You say that there is strong evidence for one but not for the other.
The point is that we know more about the provenance of the BoM but trust it less than the bible even though they make similar claims. Now suppose the BoM was 1,000 years old and lacking our modern day evidence. I'm guessing you'd still not trust it. What is the difference between the 'evidence, that makes you dismiss one but not the other? Assuming the providence equal.
Our point is that for something to be evidence, it has to be evidence of something specific and it has to be more than something outrageous written in a book.
Well first the BofM was written by one man. The Gospels were written from multiple sources and compiled while there were still witnesses.
In my mind though that is a minor issue. Religions are all the reults of mankind attempting to understand the nature of God and how that should impact our lives. When I read the Gospels I find that the god whose nature is perfectly embodied in Jesus is a god that I am prepared to worship. I believe God to be a god of love, justice and peace. I don't see that in the rather confused picture of the god that we would see in the polygamous, power seeking person of Joseph Smith
I know that you reject my conclusion but hopefully it answers your question.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1014 by Tangle, posted 11-30-2017 2:43 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1030 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2017 3:31 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 1033 by Paboss, posted 12-02-2017 5:19 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1029 of 1540 (824668)
12-01-2017 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1015 by ringo
12-01-2017 10:38 AM


Re: the nature of evidence
ringo writes:
They talk about miracles. Historical accounts don't talk about miracles.
A miracle would be historical if it actually happened.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1015 by ringo, posted 12-01-2017 10:38 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1039 by ringo, posted 12-02-2017 10:54 AM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1030 of 1540 (824671)
12-02-2017 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1028 by GDR
12-01-2017 11:04 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
GDR writes:
Religions are all the reults of mankind attempting to understand the nature of God and how that should impact our lives.
You have this the wrong way around.
Religions are the result of mankind attempting to understand nature. In primitive times they did this by inventing prime movers that could 'explain' everything. We need explanations, gods were the best we could do at the time - that's why we created so many of them. Thousands of them that do everything from creating weather to love and war.
Then, of course, people worked out that they could derive power, wealth and influence by exploiting people's need for belief and religious empires were created. It's all quite simple really.
I know that you reject my conclusion but hopefully it answers your question.
All you are able to do is repeat your belief, not explain why you maintain it against the evidence.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1028 by GDR, posted 12-01-2017 11:04 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1031 of 1540 (824672)
12-02-2017 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1021 by Faith
12-01-2017 2:17 PM


Evidence and miracles
Some more thoughts.
It is indeed hard to see how the relatively small scale miracles attributed to Jesus could leave sufficient evidence to be proven today. They can’t be supported by archaeological evidence, leaving us with at best eyewitness accounts which are always going to be unsatisfactory simply because of ordinary human failings and the greater credulity if the times.
This, however, does not demonstrate a flaw in the thinking of the skeptics. It does demonstrate that those sort of miracles can’t be good evidence to us today even if they did occur. Therefore the suggestion that God intended them to be evidence for us only asserts that a God made a foolish mistake.
But it must also be said that the evidence for those miracles could be better than it is. We can’t confirm that any of the stories were written by eye-witnesses. None come from neutral, hostile or (best of all) skeptical sources. None of them were written close in time to the supposed events. Even for mundane events we would have to consider the Gospels unreliable. If God was trying to provide evidence to us he did a very poor job.
Prophecy is better because it is much easier to have good evidence. But let’s note that the only prophecies Faith picked out were those of Daniel covering history from Nebuchadnezzar to Antiochus Epiphanes. Now, these would be good - especially those concerning Alexander - if we could confirm that those parts of Daniel were written earlier than the events. But we can’t. We don’t have any clear references to Daniel himself, despite his supposed prominence. The author seems to confuse Nabonidus with Nebuchadnezzar - which would be hard for any contemporary to do. We don’t find any reference to the book itself - and the book even indicates that part of it would only be revealed in the End Times. The prophecies concerning events after the supposed date of writing have other problems (and this is the main evidence for the date). It would hardly be impossible to have better evidence in any of these respects. Yet we don’t.
So, in all, the problem is that the evidence is bad. And it could quite easily be better if there was a God who wanted it to be better. Blaming the skeptics is hardly a sensible or honest response to the problem. It would be better to blame those who falsely claim that there is good evidence - whether through negligence, bias or dishonesty. Whatever the cause, they do believers a dissservice in promoting falsehood and unrealistic claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1021 by Faith, posted 12-01-2017 2:17 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1032 by Paboss, posted 12-02-2017 4:57 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Paboss
Member (Idle past 1765 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 10-01-2017


Message 1032 of 1540 (824673)
12-02-2017 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1031 by PaulK
12-02-2017 4:17 AM


Re: Evidence and miracles
PaulK writes:
So, in all, the problem is that the evidence is bad. And it could quite easily be better if there was a God who wanted it to be better. Blaming the skeptics is hardly a sensible or honest response to the problem.
I agree on this. The god who knows it all should have known better, to leave evidence for people to see thousands of years later; he could have been creative.
According to the Bible, in Exodus God hardened Pharaoh’s hearth to deny permission to the Hebrews to go, so that god would perform his wonders to show off his power to everyone. In the case of the burnt offering that Faith refers to a few posts earlier, God made fire come down from heaven to consume the sacrifice, in order to demonstrate to the Israelites that he was the true god; not Baal Peor. And, as I said earlier, Jesus allowed Thomas to touch his wounds to demonstrate it was really him.
There are many examples in the bible of God providing true evidence of his power and existence. It seems like in the past, he understood people needed evidence to accept his truth and believe and he gave it. Yet today we get none, just silence from god. Isn’t that suspicious? It’s no wonder why some of us are skeptic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1031 by PaulK, posted 12-02-2017 4:17 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Paboss
Member (Idle past 1765 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 10-01-2017


Message 1033 of 1540 (824674)
12-02-2017 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1028 by GDR
12-01-2017 11:04 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
GDR writes:
In my mind though that is a minor issue. Religions are all the reults of mankind attempting to understand the nature of God and how that should impact our lives. When I read the Gospels I find that the god whose nature is perfectly embodied in Jesus is a god that I am prepared to worship. I believe God to be a god of love, justice and peace. I don't see that in the rather confused picture of the god that we would see in the polygamous, power seeking person of Joseph Smith
As you must be aware, a Mormon would find the BoM to perfectly reflect the character of god while finding other holy books confusing. A muslim would say that is the Koran the book that truly shows God’s character. So on with every single religion.
Now, I’d really like to see how is the biblical god one of love justice and peace. Did not Jesus say: I come not to bring peace, but a sword? Didn’t the god of the old testament commit many atrocities? Was he a God of justice? He ordered a man to be stoned to death for picking sticks on a Saturday. But if a man raped a young woman who was not betrothed he could just get away by giving some money to her father and marrying her for life, being free to abuse her as much as he liked (she would not have a say on this; after all, she was just a woman and women don’t count for God).
I don’t agree with your view of the biblical god being one of love, justice and peace. However, I’d like to see how do you see him that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1028 by GDR, posted 12-01-2017 11:04 PM GDR has not replied

  
Paboss
Member (Idle past 1765 days)
Posts: 55
Joined: 10-01-2017


Message 1034 of 1540 (824675)
12-02-2017 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 928 by Faith
11-25-2017 7:26 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Faith writes:
Oh, I think we can be very certain that John's accounts of eyewitnesses to miracles are fictional.
Oh how I hope we get to see the expressions on some people's faces at the Judgment Seat when the truth finally slaps them upside the head.
See what your religion is doing to you? Are you really looking forward to times when the majority of people who’s ever lived will come to realize the fate that awaits us? You will be transformed in a perfect loving being, so I’d like to know how is the prospect of eternal horrible suffering for us going to bring you any joy. Won’t you spare a thought for us after, say, a million years burning in hell? Will you still be happy about that by then?
Now, speaking seriously, I’d like you to see the nonsense of this doctrine of hell. Can you make any sense of it? I know your line of thought is: God decreed it, I can’t argue. But do you like the idea? Do you think a loving being would really decree something like that? Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 928 by Faith, posted 11-25-2017 7:26 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1035 of 1540 (824676)
12-02-2017 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1027 by GDR
12-01-2017 10:43 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
GDR writes:
Yes, but the Gospel accounts of miracles certainly appear to be written to say that the miracles are historical, that they actually happened at a specific time and place. That constitutes evidence. We can choose to accept the accounts as historical, metaphorical, falsified or mistaken.
I think that if you want to view miracles as historical evidence of supernatural events that there is little I could do to talk you out of it, which I don't want to do because you go on to say:
Obviously none of that is conclusive and particularly as these occurrences aren't part of our experience it does become a matter of faith, but as I said before I found no other set of beliefs that make sense of my life and the world of my experience.
If I interpret you correctly, it's a matter of faith for you. It's between you and your God and not something I should be inserting myself into.
The very nature of a miracle is that it is not of the natural world and can't be tested scientifically.
I just yesterday said pretty much the same thing to Faith, though I took more words to say it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1027 by GDR, posted 12-01-2017 10:43 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1036 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2017 8:56 AM 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